PURPOSE: To estimate the applicability of potential sites for insertion of orthodontic mini-implants (OMIs) by a systematic review of studies that used computed tomography (CT) or cone beam CT to evaluate anatomical bone quality and quantity parameters, such as bone thickness, available space, and bone density. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to identify all relevant papers. Several key words were used, such as computerized/computed tomography, mini-implants, and OMIs. The anatomical variables that were assigned in each article to a specific site suggesting it as the ideal or best alternative were assessed separately and evaluated with a scoring system. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles were included in the study. The most favorable areas for OMI insertion in the maxilla are proposed between the first and second molars buccally and palatally. The best area in the mandible is also between the first and second molars, both buccally and lingually. In the palate, the paramedian area 3 to 6 mm posterior to and 2 to 9 mm lateral to the incisive foramen was identified as the best site for OMI placement. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the heterogeneity of the studies, there was considerable agreement regarding the optimal site for OMI insertion among most studies that investigated anatomical hard tissue parameters based on CT or CBCT data. In this respect, the posterior area from the second premolar to the second molar is the best option for OMI placement in alveolar bone.
PURPOSE: To estimate the applicability of potential sites for insertion of orthodontic mini-implants (OMIs) by a systematic review of studies that used computed tomography (CT) or cone beam CT to evaluate anatomical bone quality and quantity parameters, such as bone thickness, available space, and bone density. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to identify all relevant papers. Several key words were used, such as computerized/computed tomography, mini-implants, and OMIs. The anatomical variables that were assigned in each article to a specific site suggesting it as the ideal or best alternative were assessed separately and evaluated with a scoring system. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles were included in the study. The most favorable areas for OMI insertion in the maxilla are proposed between the first and second molars buccally and palatally. The best area in the mandible is also between the first and second molars, both buccally and lingually. In the palate, the paramedian area 3 to 6 mm posterior to and 2 to 9 mm lateral to the incisive foramen was identified as the best site for OMI placement. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the heterogeneity of the studies, there was considerable agreement regarding the optimal site for OMI insertion among most studies that investigated anatomical hard tissue parameters based on CT or CBCT data. In this respect, the posterior area from the second premolar to the second molar is the best option for OMI placement in alveolar bone.
Authors: Daniela Garib; Felicia Miranda; Juan Martin Palomo; Fernando Pugliese; José Carlos da Cunha Bastos; Alexandre Magno Dos Santos; Guilherme Janson Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 2.079