Three-dimensional Evaluation of the Cortical and Cancellous Bone Density and Thickness for Miniscrew Insertion: a CBCT Study of Interradicular Area of Adults with Different Facial Growth Pattern

Overview

Journal BMC Oral Health

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2023 Oct 13

PMID 37833666

Authors

Mahvash Hasani

Saeed Afzoon

Maryam Karandish

Mina Parastar

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of the density and the thickness of the cortical and the cancellous bone at selected inter-radicular areas in subjects with different facial growth patterns using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in order to choose the optimal area for miniscrew insertion.

Materials And Methods: From 150 CBCT scans, 45 scans were included in the study. The subjects were categorized into three groups based on their skeletal growth pattern according to SN-GoMe angle and facial height index. Cortical and cancellous bone density and thickness were measured at the selected inter-radicular areas.

Results: Compared to the other two groups, the hyperdivergent group had thinner cortical bone in the anterior region of the maxilla between the central and the lateral incisors on the buccal side at 4 mm from the alveolar crest (P-value: 0.012) and on the palatal side at 7 mm from the alveolar crest (P-value: 0.030). Cancellous bone density values in these areas were higher in subjects with hypodivergent and hyperdivergent growth pattern. Furthermore, in hyperdivergent group less dense cortical bone in the posterior region of the maxilla on the palatal side between the second premolar and the first molar (p-value: 0.020) and on the buccal side between the first molar and the second molar (p-value: 0.038 & 0.047) was observed. No significant differences were found in the mandible between the three groups. No significant differences were found between the male and the female subjects.

Conclusion: Hyperdivegents presented thinner cortical bone in the anterior of the maxilla between the central and the lateral incisors. Less dense cortical bone was found between maxillary second premolar and first molar on the palatal side and also between the maxillary first molar and the second molar on the buccal side in this group too. Normal showed higher density values in the posterior of the maxilla compared to the other two groups. No significant differences were found among three groups in mandible.

References

Suteerapongpun P, Wattanachai T, Janhom A, Tripuwabhrut P, Jotikasthira D . Quantitative evaluation of palatal bone thickness in patients with normal and open vertical skeletal configurations using cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent. 2018; 48(1):51-57. PMC: 5863020. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2018.48.1.51. View

Leo M, Cerroni L, Pasquantonio G, Condo S, Condo R . Temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in orthodontics: review of the factors that influence the clinical success rate of the mini-implants. Clin Ter. 2016; 167(3):e70-7. DOI: 10.7417/CT.2016.1936. View

Han M, Wang R, Liu H, Zhu X, Wei F, Lv T . Association between mandibular posterior alveolar morphology and growth pattern in a Chinese population with normal occlusion. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2013; 14(1):25-32. PMC: 3542955. DOI: 10.1631/jzus.B1200122. View

Singh K, Kumar D, Jaiswal R, Bansal A . Temporary anchorage devices - Mini-implants. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 1(1):30-4. PMC: 3304189. DOI: 10.4103/0975-5950.69160. View

Shetty P, Nayak U, M Hegde A, Jacob M . Temporary Anchorage Device: An Epitome of Anchorage in Orthodontic Treatment. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016; 4(2):143-6. PMC: 5030502. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1099. View

Pan C, Liu P, Tseng Y, Chou S, Wu C, Chang H . Effects of cortical bone thickness and trabecular bone density on primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants. J Dent Sci. 2020; 14(4):383-388. PMC: 6921117. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2019.06.002. View

Ozdemir F, Tozlu M, Cakan D . Quantitative evaluation of alveolar cortical bone density in adults with different vertical facial types using cone-beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod. 2014; 44(1):36-43. PMC: 3915175. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2014.44.1.36. View

Feldmann I, Bondemark L . Orthodontic anchorage: a systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2006; 76(3):493-501. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0493:OA]2.0.CO;2. View

Hoang N, Nelson G, Hatcher D, Oberoi S . Evaluation of mandibular anterior alveolus in different skeletal patterns. Prog Orthod. 2016; 17(1):22. PMC: 4954804. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-016-0135-z. View

10.

Krieger E, Wehrbein H . Interradicular trabecular bone density of the lateral maxilla for temporary anchorage devices--a histomorphometric study. Head Face Med. 2015; 11:1. PMC: 4326331. DOI: 10.1186/s13005-015-0058-9. View

11.

Gaffuri F, Cossellu G, Maspero C, Lanteri V, Ugolini A, Rasperini G . Correlation between facial growth patterns and cortical bone thickness assessed with cone-beam computed tomography in young adult untreated patients. Saudi Dent J. 2021; 33(3):161-167. PMC: 7910683. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2020.01.009. View

12.

Fayed M, Pazera P, Katsaros C . Optimal sites for orthodontic mini-implant placement assessed by cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80(5):939-51. PMC: 8939012. DOI: 10.2319/121009-709.1. View

13.

Li H, Zhang H, Smales R, Zhang Y, Ni Y, Ma J . Effect of 3 vertical facial patterns on alveolar bone quality at selected miniscrew implant sites. Implant Dent. 2014; 23(1):92-7. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000036. View

14.

Turkyilmaz I, McGlumphy E . Influence of bone density on implant stability parameters and implant success: a retrospective clinical study. BMC Oral Health. 2008; 8:32. PMC: 2614413. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-8-32. View

15.

Roosenboom J, Hens G, Mattern B, Shriver M, Claes P . Exploring the Underlying Genetics of Craniofacial Morphology through Various Sources of Knowledge. Biomed Res Int. 2017; 2016:3054578. PMC: 5178329. DOI: 10.1155/2016/3054578. View

16.

Nayar S, Aruna , Santhosh , Manzoor W . Correlation between arch form and facial form: A cross sectional study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2015; 7(Suppl 1):S85-6. PMC: 4439721. DOI: 10.4103/0975-7406.155816. View

17.

Sadek M, Sabet N, Hassan I . Three-dimensional mapping of cortical bone thickness in subjects with different vertical facial dimensions. Prog Orthod. 2016; 17(1):32. PMC: 5065941. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-016-0145-x. View

18.

Yu W, Tsai M, Yu J, Huang H, Hsu J . Bone quality affects stability of orthodontic miniscrews. Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):2849. PMC: 8857199. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-06851-y. View

19.

Marquezan M, Lima I, Lopes R, Franzotti SantAnna E, de Souza M . Is trabecular bone related to primary stability of miniscrews?. Angle Orthod. 2013; 84(3):500-7. PMC: 8667495. DOI: 10.2319/052513-39.1. View

20.

Alkhadra T . Mandibular alveolar bone volume in patients with different vertical facial dimensions. Saudi Dent J. 2017; 29(4):140-143. PMC: 5634793. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2017.07.002. View