Two-dimensional Radiographs Versus Cone-beam Computed Tomography in Planning Mini-implant Placement: A Systematic Review

Overview

Journal J Clin Exp Dent

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2022 Sep 1

PMID 36046172

Authors

Gabriela-Franco-da Rosa Caetano

Mariana-Quirino-Silveira Soares

Luciana-Butini Oliveira

Jose-Luiz-Cintra Junqueira

Monikelly-do Carmo-Chagas Nascimento

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to compare two-dimensional radiographs and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images for mini-implant planning.

Material And Methods: A search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar electronic databases according to PIRD strategy, on September 11, 2021. In vivo studies that compared two-dimensional imaging with CBCT for mini-implant planning were selected. The methodological quality of each study was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.

Results: The initial search identified 441 papers. Five studies were added following a manual research. Of the total 446 studies, 40 were selected after title evaluation, 29 remained after abstract evaluation, and 11 were left after full-text analysis. Final screening yielded a total of four studies that composed the narrative synthesis of this systematic review. When comparing the imaging systems for palatal mini-implants, lateral radiographs (LRs) showed approximately the same measurements of bone quantity as those of CBCT, hence bearing no influence on placement site selection. In determining image suitability for interradicular mini-implants, two-dimensional radiographs underestimated the available space.

Conclusions: Lateral radiography is sufficient to quantify the available bone for planning mini-implants installed on the palate, in the median region of upper first premolars. CBCT enhances interradicular mini-implant planning by aiding in implantation site selection, and improving the installation success rate. Systematic Review, Cone beam computed tomography, Radiography, Orthodontic mini-implant, Dental planning.

Citing Articles

Feasibility of craniofacial landmark plotting on magnetic resonance images.

Rana S, Sharma A, Gupta A, Vichare S, Rajagopalan A Odontology. 2025; .

PMID: 40064745 DOI: 10.1007/s10266-025-01077-6.

Three-dimensional digital imaging analysis of the palatal bone thickness for orthodontic mini-implant insertion - determination of the safe zone and angulation.

Schubert H, Matta R, Seidel A, Adler W, Wichmann M, Kesting M BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):1448.

PMID: 39609793 PMC: 11603675. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-05229-y.

A Comparison of Deep Learning vs. Dental Implantologists in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography-Based Bone Quality Classification.

Pornvoranant T, Panyarak W, Wantanajittikul K, Charuakkra A, Rungsiyakull P, Chaijareenont P J Imaging Inform Med. 2024; .

PMID: 39557735 DOI: 10.1007/s10278-024-01317-1.

References

Alves Jr M, Baratieri C, Mattos C, de Souza Araujo M, Maia L . Root repair after contact with mini-implants: systematic review of the literature. Eur J Orthod. 2012; 35(4):491-9. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjs025. View

Mohlhenrich S, Kniha K, Peters F, Chhatwani S, Prescher A, Holzle F . Anatomical assessment by cone beam computed tomography with the use of lateral cephalograms to analyse the vertical bone height of the anterior palate for orthodontic mini-implants. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2020; 24(1):78-86. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12406. View

Kalra S, Tripathi T, Rai P, Kanase A . Evaluation of orthodontic mini-implant placement: a CBCT study. Prog Orthod. 2014; 15:61. PMC: 4234895. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-014-0061-x. View

AlSamak S, Gkantidis N, Bitsanis E, Christou P . Assessment of potential orthodontic mini-implant insertion sites based on anatomical hard tissue parameters: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27(4):875-87. View

Abbassy M, Sabban H, Hassan A, Zawawi K . Evaluation of mini-implant sites in the posterior maxilla using traditional radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography. Saudi Med J. 2015; 36(11):1336-41. PMC: 4673372. DOI: 10.15537/smj.2015.11.12462. View

Kim H, Yun H, Park H, Kim D, Park Y . Soft-tissue and cortical-bone thickness at orthodontic implant sites. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130(2):177-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.12.024. View

Kyung H, Park H, Bae S, Sung J, Kim I . Development of orthodontic micro-implants for intraoral anchorage. J Clin Orthod. 2003; 37(6):321-8; quiz 314. View

Oz U, Orhan K, Abe N . Comparison of linear and angular measurements using two-dimensional conventional methods and three-dimensional cone beam CT images reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program in vivo. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011; 40(8):492-500. PMC: 3528152. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/15644321. View

Melescanu Imre M, Preoteasa E, Tancu A, Preoteasa C . Imaging technique for the complete edentulous patient treated conventionally or with mini implant overdenture. J Med Life. 2013; 6(1):86-92. PMC: 3624656. View

10.

Jung B, Wehrbein H, Heuser L, Kunkel M . Vertical palatal bone dimensions on lateral cephalometry and cone-beam computed tomography: implications for palatal implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 22(6):664-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02021.x. View

11.

Barbosa G, Ramirez-Sotelo L, de Melo Tavora D, Maria de Almeida S . Vertical measurements for planning palatal mini-implants in lateral radiography and cone beam computed tomography. Implant Dent. 2014; 23(5):588-92. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000149. View

12.

Lyu X, Guo J, Chen L, Gao Y, Liu L, Pu L . Assessment of available sites for palatal orthodontic mini-implants through cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2020; 90(4):516-523. PMC: 8028458. DOI: 10.2319/070719-457.1. View

13.

Gutmacher Z, Machtei E, Hirsh I, Zigdon-Giladi H, Horwitz J . A comparative study on the use of digital panoramic and periapical radiographs to assess proximal bone height around dental implants. Quintessence Int. 2016; 47(5):441-6. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a35704. View

14.

Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A . Comparison of panoramic and conventional cross-sectional tomography for preoperative selection of implant size. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 22(4):424-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02006.x. View

15.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(7):e1000097. PMC: 2707599. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. View

16.

Tepedino M, Cornelis M, Chimenti C, Cattaneo P . Correlation between tooth size-arch length discrepancy and interradicular distances measured on CBCT and panoramic radiograph: an evaluation for miniscrew insertion. Dental Press J Orthod. 2018; 23(5):39.e1-39.e13. PMC: 6266319. DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.23.5.39.e1-13.onl. View

17.

Schnelle M, Beck F, Jaynes R, Huja S . A radiographic evaluation of the availability of bone for placement of miniscrews. Angle Orthod. 2005; 74(6):832-7. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0832:AREOTA>2.0.CO;2. View

18.

Oenning A, Jacobs R, Pauwels R, Stratis A, Hedesiu M, Salmon B . Cone-beam CT in paediatric dentistry: DIMITRA project position statement. Pediatr Radiol. 2017; 48(3):308-316. DOI: 10.1007/s00247-017-4012-9. View

19.

Yassaei S, Ezoddini-Ardakani F, Ostovar N . Predicting the actual length of premolar teeth on the basis of panoramic radiology. Indian J Dent Res. 2010; 21(4):468-73. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.74207. View

20.

Jung B, Wehrbein H, Wagner W, Kunkel M . Preoperative diagnostic for palatal implants: Is CT or CBCT necessary?. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010; 14(3):400-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00259.x. View