Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of interradicular distances and cortical bone thickness in Thai patients with Class I and Class II skeletal patterns using cone-beam computed tomography

  • Khumsarn, Nattida (Dental Division of Lamphun Hospital) ;
  • Patanaporn, Virush (Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai University) ;
  • Janhom, Apirum (Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai University) ;
  • Jotikasthira, Dhirawat (Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai University)
  • Received : 2016.01.15
  • Accepted : 2016.04.02
  • Published : 2016.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study evaluated and compared interradicular distances and cortical bone thickness in Thai patients with Class I and Class II skeletal patterns, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: Pretreatment CBCT images of 24 Thai orthodontic patients with Class I and Class II skeletal patterns were included in the study. Three measurements were chosen for investigation: the mesiodistal distance between the roots, the width of the buccolingual alveolar process, and buccal cortical bone thickness. All distances were recorded at five different levels from the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). Descriptive statistical analysis and t-tests were performed, with the significance level for all tests set at p<0.05. Results: Patients with a Class II skeletal pattern showed significantly greater maxillary mesiodistal distances (between the first and second premolars) and widths of the buccolingual alveolar process (between the first and second molars) than Class I skeletal pattern patients at 10 mm above the CEJ. The maxillary buccal cortical bone thicknesses between the second premolar and first molar at 8 mm above the CEJ in Class II patients were likewise significantly greater than in Class I patients. Patients with a Class I skeletal pattern showed significantly wider mandibular buccolingual alveolar processes than did Class II patients (between the first and second molars) at 4, 6, and 8 mm below the CEJ. Conclusion: In both the maxilla and mandible, the mesiodistal distances, the width of the buccolingual alveolar process, and buccal cortical bone thickness tended to increase from the CEJ to the apex in both Class I and Class II skeletal patterns.

Keywords

References

  1. Baumgaertel S, Razavi MR, Hans MG. Mini-implant anchorage for the orthodontic practitioner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 621-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.03.022
  2. Wilmes B, Rademacher C, Olthoff G, Drescher D. Parameters affecting primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants. J Orofac Orthop 2006; 67: 162-74 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-006-0611-z
  3. Chaimanee P, Suzuki B, Suzuki EY. "Safe zones" for miniscrew implant placement in different dentoskeletal patterns. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 397-403. https://doi.org/10.2319/061710-111.1
  4. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 2006; 72: 75-80.
  5. Kapila S, Conley RS, Harrell WE Jr. The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/12615645
  6. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am 2008; 52: 707-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.005
  7. Poggio PM, Incorvati C, Velo S, Carano A. "Safe zones": a guide for miniscrew positioning in the maxillary and mandibular arch. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 191-7.
  8. Park J, Cho HJ. Three-dimensional evaluation of interradicular spaces and cortical bone thickness for the placement and initial stability of microimplants in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 314 e1-12.
  9. Fayed MM, Pazera P, Katsaros C. Optimal sites for orthodontic mini-implant placement assessed by cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 2010; 80: 939-51. https://doi.org/10.2319/121009-709.1
  10. Monnerat C, Restle L, Mucha JN. Tomographic mapping of mandibular interradicular spaces for placement of orthodontic mini-implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135: 428 e1-9.
  11. Baumgaertel S, Hans MG. Buccal cortical bone thickness for mini-implant placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 230-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.10.045
  12. Sawada K, Nakahara K, Matsunaga S, Abe S, Ide Y. Evaluation of cortical bone thickness and root proximity at maxillary interradicular sites for mini-implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013: 24 Suppl A100: 1-7.
  13. Schnelle MA, Beck FM, Jaynes RM, Huja SS. A radiographic evaluation of the availability of bone for placement of miniscrews. Angle Orthod 2004; 74: 832-7.
  14. Hu KS, Kang MK, Kim TW, Kim KH, Kim HJ. Relationships between dental roots and surrounding tissues for orthodontic miniscrew installation. Angle Orthod 2009; 79: 37-45. https://doi.org/10.2319/083107-405.1
  15. Motoyoshi M. Clinical indices for orthodontic mini-implants. J Oral Sci 2011; 53: 407-12. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.53.407
  16. Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 106: 106-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.03.018

Cited by

  1. Comparación de distancias interradiculares y grosor del hueso cortical en dos sectores del maxilar inferior para colocación de mini implantes vol.8, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.15446/aoc.v8n2.73876
  2. Buccal cortical bone thickness in different sagittal skeletal relationship vol.77, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.odw.2018.08.001