Cargando…

Evaluation of orthodontic mini-implant placement: a CBCT study

BACKGROUND: Optimal positioning of orthodontic mini-implants is essential for a successful treatment with skeletal anchorage. This study aims to compare the accuracy of two-dimensional radiographs with a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for mini-implant placement. METHODS: An ideal site for mini...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kalra, Shilpa, Tripathi, Tulika, Rai, Priyank, Kanase, Anup
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4234895/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25406652
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0061-x
_version_ 1782344931532079104
author Kalra, Shilpa
Tripathi, Tulika
Rai, Priyank
Kanase, Anup
author_facet Kalra, Shilpa
Tripathi, Tulika
Rai, Priyank
Kanase, Anup
author_sort Kalra, Shilpa
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Optimal positioning of orthodontic mini-implants is essential for a successful treatment with skeletal anchorage. This study aims to compare the accuracy of two-dimensional radiographs with a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for mini-implant placement. METHODS: An ideal site for mini-implant placement at the buccal interradicular space between the second premolar and the first molar was determined for 40 sites (in 13 patients aged 14 to 28 years) by using CBCT data. The mini-implant placement procedure was then divided into two groups. In CBCT group, mini-implants were placed at the sites determined from CBCT data. In RVG group, mini-implants were placed with the help of two-dimensional digital radiographs and a custom made guide. Postplacement CBCT scans were obtained to determine the accuracy of the mini-implant placement. The results were statistically analyzed with a Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference (p value = 0.02) was observed between the two groups for deviation from an ideal height of placement of the mini-implants. Deviations in mesiodistal positioning and angular deviation showed a statistically non-significant difference. Three out of twenty mini-implants in the RVG group showed root contact in the mandibular arch that may be attributed to the narrower interradicular space and reduced accessibility in the mandibular posterior region. CONCLUSIONS: Although CBCT provides an accurate three-dimensional visualization of the interradicular space, the two-dimensional intraoral radiograph of the interradicular area provides sufficient information for mini-implant placement. Considering the amount of radiation exposure and cost with the two techniques, it is recommended to use two-dimensional radiographs with a surgical guide for a routine mini-implant placement.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4234895
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42348952014-11-19 Evaluation of orthodontic mini-implant placement: a CBCT study Kalra, Shilpa Tripathi, Tulika Rai, Priyank Kanase, Anup Prog Orthod Research BACKGROUND: Optimal positioning of orthodontic mini-implants is essential for a successful treatment with skeletal anchorage. This study aims to compare the accuracy of two-dimensional radiographs with a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for mini-implant placement. METHODS: An ideal site for mini-implant placement at the buccal interradicular space between the second premolar and the first molar was determined for 40 sites (in 13 patients aged 14 to 28 years) by using CBCT data. The mini-implant placement procedure was then divided into two groups. In CBCT group, mini-implants were placed at the sites determined from CBCT data. In RVG group, mini-implants were placed with the help of two-dimensional digital radiographs and a custom made guide. Postplacement CBCT scans were obtained to determine the accuracy of the mini-implant placement. The results were statistically analyzed with a Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference (p value = 0.02) was observed between the two groups for deviation from an ideal height of placement of the mini-implants. Deviations in mesiodistal positioning and angular deviation showed a statistically non-significant difference. Three out of twenty mini-implants in the RVG group showed root contact in the mandibular arch that may be attributed to the narrower interradicular space and reduced accessibility in the mandibular posterior region. CONCLUSIONS: Although CBCT provides an accurate three-dimensional visualization of the interradicular space, the two-dimensional intraoral radiograph of the interradicular area provides sufficient information for mini-implant placement. Considering the amount of radiation exposure and cost with the two techniques, it is recommended to use two-dimensional radiographs with a surgical guide for a routine mini-implant placement. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2014-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4234895/ /pubmed/25406652 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0061-x Text en © Kalra et al.; licensee Springer. 2014 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
spellingShingle Research
Kalra, Shilpa
Tripathi, Tulika
Rai, Priyank
Kanase, Anup
Evaluation of orthodontic mini-implant placement: a CBCT study
title Evaluation of orthodontic mini-implant placement: a CBCT study
title_full Evaluation of orthodontic mini-implant placement: a CBCT study
title_fullStr Evaluation of orthodontic mini-implant placement: a CBCT study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of orthodontic mini-implant placement: a CBCT study
title_short Evaluation of orthodontic mini-implant placement: a CBCT study
title_sort evaluation of orthodontic mini-implant placement: a cbct study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4234895/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25406652
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0061-x
work_keys_str_mv AT kalrashilpa evaluationoforthodonticminiimplantplacementacbctstudy
AT tripathitulika evaluationoforthodonticminiimplantplacementacbctstudy
AT raipriyank evaluationoforthodonticminiimplantplacementacbctstudy
AT kanaseanup evaluationoforthodonticminiimplantplacementacbctstudy