The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of the palatal soft tissue thickness by cone-beam computed tomography

  • Vu, Trang (Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Bayome, Mohamed (Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Kook, Yoon-Ah (Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Han, Seong Ho (Division of Orthodontics, Department of Dentistry, St. Vincent's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • Received : 2011.10.22
  • Accepted : 2012.09.10
  • Published : 2012.12.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The purposes of this study were to measure the palatal soft tissue thickness at popular placement sites of temporary anchorage devices (TADs) by cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and evaluate the age, gender, and positional differences in this parameter. Methods: The study sample consisted of 23 children (10 boys and 13 girls; mean age, $10.87{\pm}1.24$ years; range, 6.7 to 12.6 years) and 27 adults (14 men and 13 women; mean age, $21.35{\pm}1.14$ years; range, 20.0 to 23.8 years). Nine mediolateral and nine anteroposterior intersecting reference lines were drawn on CBCT scans of the 50 subjects, and the resultant measurement areas were designated according to their mediolateral (i.e., lateral, medial, and sutural) and anteroposterior (i.e., anterior, middle, and posterior) positions. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was performed to analyze intragroup and intergroup differences. Results: No significant age and gender differences were found (p = 0.309 and 0.124, respectively). Further, no significant anteroposterior change was observed (p = 0.350). However, the lateral area presented the thickest soft tissue whereas the sutural area had the thinnest soft tissue (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Clinical selection of the placement sites of TADs should be guided by knowledge of the positional variations in the palatal soft tissue thickness in addition to other contributing factors of TAD stability.

Keywords

References

  1. Kinzinger GS, Eren M, Diedrich PR. Treatment effects of intraoral appliances with conventional anchorage designs for non-compliance maxillary molar distalization: a literature review. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:558-71. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn047
  2. Papadopoulos MA, Tarawneh F. The use of miniscrew implants for temporary skeletal anchorage in orthodontics: a comprehensive review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;103:e6-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(07)00249-1
  3. Hoste S, Vercruyssen M, Quirynen M, Willems G. Risk factors and indications of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: a literature review. Aust Orthod J 2008;24:140-8.
  4. Reynders R, Ronchi L, Bipat S. Mini-implants in orthodontics: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:564.e1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.09.026
  5. Chen YJ, Chang HH, Huang CY, Hung HC, Lai EH, Yao CC. A retrospective analysis of the failure rate of three different orthodontic skeletal anchorage systems. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:768-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01405.x
  6. Kyung SH, Lee JY, Shin JW, Hong C, Dietz V, Gianelly AA. Distalization of the entire maxillary arch in an adult. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135(4 Suppl):S123-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.01.015
  7. Kook YA, Kim SH, Chung KR. A modified palatal anchorage plate for simple and efficient distalization. J Clin Orthod 2010;44:719-30.
  8. Sandler J, Benson PE, Doyle P, Majumder A, O'Dwyer J, Speight P, et al. Palatal implants are a good alternative to headgear: a randomized trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:51-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.04.032
  9. Greenberg J, Laster L, Listgarten MA. Transgingival probing as a potential estimator of alveolar bone level. J Periodontol 1976;47:514-7. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1976.47.9.514
  10. Wara-aswapati N, Pitiphat W, Chandrapho N, Rattanayatikul C, Karimbux N. Thickness of palatal masticatory mucosa associated with age. J Periodontol 2001;72:1407-12. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2001.72.10.1407
  11. Eger T, Muller HP, Heinecke A. Ultrasonic determination of gingival thickness: subject variation and influence of tooth type and clinical features. J Clin Periodontol 1996;23:839-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1996.tb00621.x
  12. Muller HP, Schaller N, Eger T, Heinecke A. Thickness of masticatory mucosa. J Clin Periodontol 2000;27:431-6. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051x.2000.027006431.x
  13. Song JE, Um YJ, Kim CS, Choi SH, Cho KS, Kim CK, et al. Thickness of posterior palatal masticatory mucosa: the use of computerized tomography. J Periodontol 2008;79:406-12. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.070302
  14. Ueno D, Sato J, Igarashi C, Ikeda S, Morita M, Shimoda S, et al. Accuracy of oral mucosal thickness measurements using spiral computed tomography. J Periodontol 2011;82:829-36. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2010.100160
  15. Januario AL, Barriviera M, Duarte WR. Soft tissue cone-beam computed tomography: a novel method for the measurement of gingival tissue and the dimensions of the dentogingival unit. J Esthet Restor Dent 2008;20:366-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2008.00210.x
  16. Barriviera M, Duarte WR, Januario AL, Faber J, Bezerra AC. A new method to assess and measure palatal masticatory mucosa by cone-beam computerized tomography. J Clin Periodontol 2009;36:564-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01422.x
  17. Fu JH, Yeh CY, Chan HL, Tatarakis N, Leong DJ, Wang HL. Tissue biotype and its relation to the underlying bone morphology. J Periodontol 2010;81:569-74. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.090591
  18. Kim HJ, Yun HS, Park HD, Kim DH, Park YC. Softtissue and cortical-bone thickness at orthodontic implant sites. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:177-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.12.024
  19. Moon SH, Park SH, Lim WH, Chun YS. Palatal bone density in adult subjects: implications for mini-implant placement. Angle Orthod 2010;80:137-44. https://doi.org/10.2319/011909-40.1
  20. Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, Loubele M, Schutyser F, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. State-of-the-art on cone beam CT imaging for preoperative planning of implant placement. Clin Oral Investig 2006;10:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0031-2
  21. Cha BK, Lee YH, Lee NK, Choi DS, Baek SH. Soft tissue thickness for placement of an orthodontic miniscrew using an ultrasonic device. Angle Orthod 2008;78:403-8. https://doi.org/10.2319/051607-237.1

Cited by

  1. A comparison of treatment effects of total arch distalization using modified C-palatal plate vs buccal miniscrews vol.88, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.2319/061917-406.1
  2. Clinical applications and treatment outcomes with modified C-palatal plates vol.24, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2018.01.005
  3. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography in evaluation of palatal mucosa thickness vol.47, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13254
  4. Palatal temporary skeletal anchorage devices (TSADs): What to know and how to do? vol.24, pp.suppl, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12451
  5. Distalization of maxillary molars using temporary skeletal anchorage devices: A systematic review and meta‐analysis vol.24, pp.suppl, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12470