INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to determine bone density at various orthodontic implant sites and compare them according to depth and area (anterior and posterior, buccal and lingual, and maxilla and mandible). METHODS: Maxillofacial computed tomography scan data were obtained from 30 adults with normal occlusion. Bone density was recorded in Hounsfield units with simulated placement of miniscrews with the V-Implant program (CyberMed, Seoul, Korea). Bone density was measured to a depth of 6 mm at 1-mm intervals in 60 interdental areas (30 in the maxilla, 30 in the mandible), and mean bone density was calculated at each site. RESULTS: Bone density tended to decrease with increasing depth, particularly in the posterior area. Mean bone density showed a progressive increase from posterior to anterior except for the mandibular buccal side, which had no significant differences. A comparison of the mean bone densities between the buccal and lingual sides in the mandible showed that the lingual side had higher values in the anterior area and vice versa in the posterior area. On the other hand, there were no distinct differences between the buccal and lingual sides in the maxilla. A comparison of the mean bone densities between the maxilla and the mandible showed higher values in the mandible, and these differences were more significant on the buccal side of the posterior. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in bone densities according to depth and area should be considered when selecting and placing miniscrew implants for orthodontic anchorage.
INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to determine bone density at various orthodontic implant sites and compare them according to depth and area (anterior and posterior, buccal and lingual, and maxilla and mandible). METHODS: Maxillofacial computed tomography scan data were obtained from 30 adults with normal occlusion. Bone density was recorded in Hounsfield units with simulated placement of miniscrews with the V-Implant program (CyberMed, Seoul, Korea). Bone density was measured to a depth of 6 mm at 1-mm intervals in 60 interdental areas (30 in the maxilla, 30 in the mandible), and mean bone density was calculated at each site. RESULTS: Bone density tended to decrease with increasing depth, particularly in the posterior area. Mean bone density showed a progressive increase from posterior to anterior except for the mandibular buccal side, which had no significant differences. A comparison of the mean bone densities between the buccal and lingual sides in the mandible showed that the lingual side had higher values in the anterior area and vice versa in the posterior area. On the other hand, there were no distinct differences between the buccal and lingual sides in the maxilla. A comparison of the mean bone densities between the maxilla and the mandible showed higher values in the mandible, and these differences were more significant on the buccal side of the posterior. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in bone densities according to depth and area should be considered when selecting and placing miniscrew implants for orthodontic anchorage.
Authors: Marcio José da Silva Campos; Thainara Salgueiro de Souza; Sergio Luiz Mota Júnior; Marcelo Reis Fraga; Robert Willer Farinazzo Vitral Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2014-08-28
Authors: Ha Na Song; Christine Hong; Robert Banh; Tania Ohebsion; Greg Asatrian; Ho-Yin Leung; Benjamin M Wu; Won Moon Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2013-04-29 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Marcio José da Silva Campos; Elisa Gomes de Albuquerque; Bernardo Caixeiro Hauck Pinto; Hélio Moreira Húngaro; Marco Abdo Gravina; Marcelo Reis Fraga; Robert Willer Farinazzo Vitral Journal: Med Sci Monit Date: 2012-12