Additional intraoral radiographs may change the judgment regarding the final position of orthodontic mini-implants.

Marina K Oba,Christiano Oliveira-Santos,Guido A Marañón-Vásquez,Fábio L Romano

doi:10.1590/2177-6709.23.2.054-061.oar

Marina K Oba, Christiano Oliveira-Santos + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.23.2.054-061.oar

Copy DOI

Abstract

ABSTRACTObjective: This study aimed to assess if additional vertical bitewing (VBW) and/or occlusal (OC) radiographs may change initial judgment based only on periapical radiograph (PAR) about the final position of orthodontic mini-implants (OMI). Methods: Subjective and objective analyses were performed. Radiographic images of 26 OMI were divided into four groups: PAR, PAR+VBW, PAR+OC and ALL (PAR+VBW+OC). For subjective analysis, five observers were asked to assess if the position of OMI was favorable to its success, using questionnaires with a four-point scale for responses: 1= definitely not favorable, 2= probably not favorable, 3= probably favorable, or 4= definitely favorable. Each group containing sets of images was presented to them in four different viewing sessions. Objective evaluation compared horizontal distances between OMI tip and the root nearest to the device in PAR and VBW. Results: Most of observers (3 out of 5) changed their initial judgment based on PAR about OMI position when additional radiographs were analyzed. Differences between groups (i.e. PAR vs. PAR+VBW; PAR vs. PAR+OC; and, PARvs.ALL) were statistically significant for these observers. For those that changed their judgment about OMI position, confidence level could significantly increase, decrease or even be maintained, not indicating a pattern. There was no agreement for distances between OMI tip and the root nearest to the device in PAR and VBW. Conclusion: Considering the limitations of the study, it is concluded that additional radiographic images may change the judgement about OMI final position without necessarily increasing the degree of certainty of such judgment.

Highlights

Correct positioning of orthodontic mini-implants (OMI) is one of the most important factors associated to their success rate.[1,2,3,4,5] Several methods[6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17] have been used to assess the position of these devices
Most of observers (3 out of 5) changed their initial judgment based on Periapical radiograph (PAR) only about OMI position when additional radiographs were analyzed (i.e. PAR vs. PAR+Vertical bitewing technique (VBW); PAR vs. PAR+occlusal radiography (OC); or, PAR vs. ALL)
Was added (PAR vs. PAR + OC), observers 1, 4 and 5 modified their judgment; and, when both radiographs were added (PAR vs. ALL), observers 3, 4 and 5 modified their opinion on whether or not the position was favorable to the success of the device

Summary

Introduction

Correct positioning of orthodontic mini-implants (OMI) is one of the most important factors associated to their success rate.[1,2,3,4,5] Several methods[6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17] have been used to assess the position of these devices. Three-dimensional imaging, such as cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), could allow a more accurate observation of the relationship between the OMI and the roots.[16] significant differences between PAR and CBCT have been found regarding the assessment of the proximity of the OMI and roots, with less than 50% agreement between these imaging modalities.[17,19] CBCT seems to be the most indicated method for this assessment,[4,5,20] higher radiation dose and cost are still disadvantages that preclude their routine use This justifies the search for other radiographic methods with the potential to assist or complement the assessment of OMI final position when necessary. Occlusal radiography (OC) shows a totally different perspective of the device and related structures around it.[14]

Methods

Results

Conclusion