Abstract
ObjectiveTo assess the amount of maxillary and mandibular inter-radicular bone mass and determine the most reliable mini-screw placement sites.Materials and methodsRetrospective Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images of 40 Angle Class I subjects (20 females, 20 males, aged 16 to 32) were obtained. Measurements on the buccal (BI), medial (MI) and lingual (LI) sides of the inter-radicular spaces were taken at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 mm from the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) in an apical direction.ResultsThe male and female BI scores ranged from 2.99±0.73 mm to 6.18±1.03 mm and 2.69±0.84 mm to 6.21±1.22 mm respectively. The male and female MI scores ranged from 1.36±0.38 mm to 4.50±0.99 and 1.53±0.66 to 4.77±1.99 mm respectively. LI scores ranged from 2.37±0.70 to 6.47±1.0 mm and 2.45±0.56 mm and 6.66±1.33 mm respectively. In both maxillary and mandibular arch, the inter-radicular space increased in the apical direction except for the buccal and medial inter-radicular spaces between the maxillary first and second molars.ConclusionThe medial inter-radicular spaces are the decisive parameter for mini-screw placement. In the maxillary arch, regions between central and lateral incisors, lateral incisor and canine, first and second molars are not viable for mini-screw insertion. The residual inter-radicular regions are proper for implantation at 3 mm above the CEJ. In the mandible, the regions between incisors and canines are too narrow for mini-screw insertion and the reliable sites for mini-screws are regions between premolars, molars or first molar and second premolar at 2 mm below the CEJ.
Highlights
Orthodontic anchorage is defined as “resistance to unwanted tooth movement”
Since panoramic and periapical radiographs reduce the three-dimensional clinical situation to a two-dimensional image, other researchers tried to investigate the best sites for implant placement using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)
The means and standard deviations of measurement at locations Buccal inter-radicular (BI), MI and LI at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-mm heights from cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) are presented in Table 1 (BI), Table 2 (MI) and Table 3 (LI)
Summary
Orthodontic anchorage is defined as “resistance to unwanted tooth movement”. Many intraoral and extraoral appliances have been designed to stabilize a segment of teeth and facilitate tooth movement. Temporary Anchorage Devices (TADs) are a collection of attachments that are anchored to bone, and have been reported to provide “absolute anchorage” to achieve optimal tooth movement [1]. They include palatal implants, onplants, mini-plates and mini-screws. Park et al [12] evaluated the safety and stability of micro-implant placement by measuring the inter-radicular space, thickness of cortical bone and alveolar process width Their results indicate that the posterior dentition area in the maxilla and the mandible are safe locations for mini-implant placement
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
