3D mapping of safe and danger zones of both maxilla and mandible for the placement of orthodontic mini-implant in Malay class II malocclusion patients

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Date
2018-05
Authors
Jamil, Md Mashfique
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pusat Pengajian Sains Perubatan, Universiti Sains Malaysia
Abstract
The mini-implants, are now a common technique of treatment in Orthodontics which offer flexibility, minimal invasiveness and acceptable costing. Mini-implants have replaced conventional anchorage in circumstances where anchorage is considered perilous, unsatisfactory and expected to have unwanted side effects. The main objective of this research was to find safe location between dental roots to offer an anatomic map to contribute the orthodontist with the information for mini-implant placement. A cross-sectional retrospective study was performed using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of 96 Malay class II orthodontic patients (age range 14-30 years), receiving treatment in Orthodontic Clinic, Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia. The images were analyzed by the Planmeca Romexis® 3.0 software (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland). A total of 244 variables were measured in each image, in every image interradicular space, the mesiodistal and the buccolingual distances measured at four cut levels of 2mm, 5mm, 8mm and 11mm from the alveolar crest and mesiodistal tooth size width along with arch size. In this study, measurements from the right sided second molar to the left sided second molar in both maxilla and mandible are presented. Independent t-test and paired t-test were conducted to analyze the mesiodistal, buccopalatal, buccolingual distances, mesiodistal tooth size width and arch size consequently gender and side disparities. The study shows that in maxilla, the safe zone for mini-implant placement are from distal of lateral incisor to mesial of second molar towards the apices for the right side and mesial of first molar for the left side. In the mandible, safe zones are mainly in posterior region between first premolarand second molar. Mesiodistal width of maxilla shows significant differences between male and female at premolar and molar region whereas in mandible was at canine and premolar region in both side of the jaws. Buccolingual width shows obvious significant differences between right and left side in mandible. Other findings revealed, male has significantly higher buccopalatal/buccolingual width, mesiodistal tooth size width, intercanine, interpremolar, intermolar width and arch length in both side of maxilla and mandible than female.
Description
Keywords
Orthodontics
Citation