The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of factors influencing the success rate of orthodontic microimplants using panoramic radiographs

  • Park, Jae Hyun (Postgraduate Orthodontic Program, Arizona School of Dentistry & Oral Health, A. T. Still University) ;
  • Chae, Jong-Moon (Postgraduate Orthodontic Program, Arizona School of Dentistry & Oral Health, A. T. Still University) ;
  • Bay, R. Curtis (Department of Interdisciplinary Health Sciences, A. T. Still University) ;
  • Kim, Mi-Jung (Department of Orthodontics, University of Wonkwang School of Dentistry) ;
  • Lee, Keun-Young (Department of Orthodontics, Wonkwang University Sanbon Dental Hospital) ;
  • Chang, Na-Young (Department of Orthodontics and Wonkwang Dental Research Institute, University of Wonkwang School of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2017.03.27
  • Accepted : 2017.07.10
  • Published : 2018.01.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate factors influencing the success rate of orthodontic microimplants (OMIs) using panoramic radiographs (PRs). Methods: We examined 160 OMIs inserted bilaterally in the maxillary buccal alveolar bone between the second premolars and first molars of 80 patients (51 women, 29 men; mean age, $18.0{\pm}6.1years$) undergoing treatment for malocclusion. The angulation and position of OMIs, as well as other parameters, were measured on PRs. The correlation between each measurement and the OMI success rate was then evaluated. Results: The overall success rate was 85.0% (136/160). Age was found to be a significant predictor of implant success (p < 0.05), while sex, side of placement, extraction, and position of the OMI tip were not significant predictors (p > 0.05). The highest success rate was observed for OMIs with tips positioned on the interradicular midline (IRML; central position). Univariate analyses revealed that the OMI success rate significantly increased with an increase in the OMI length and placement height of OMI (p = 0.001). However, in simultaneous analyses, only length remained significant (p = 0.027). Root proximity, distance between the OMI tip and IRML, interradicular distance, alveolar crest width, distance between the OMI head and IRML, and placement angle were not factors for success. Correlations between the placement angle and all other measurements except root proximity were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that OMIs positioned more apically with a lesser angulation, as observed on PRs, exhibit high success rates.

Keywords

References

  1. Min KI, Kim SC, Kang KH, Cho JH, Lee EH, Chang NY, et al. Root proximity and cortical bone thickness effects on the success rate of orthodontic microimplants using cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 2012;82:1014-21. https://doi.org/10.2319/091311-593.1
  2. Jung YR, Kim SC, Kang KH, Cho JH, Lee EH, Chang NY, et al. Placement angle effects on the success rate of orthodontic microimplants and other factors with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143:173-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.09.011
  3. Lee MY, Park JH, Kim SC, Kang KH, Cho JH, Cho JW, et al. Bone density effects on the success rate of orthodontic microimplants evaluated with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;149:217-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.07.037
  4. Deguchi T, Nasu M, Murakami K, Yabuuchi T, Kamioka H, Takano-Yamamoto T. Quantitative evaluation of cortical bone thickness with computed tomographic scanning for orthodontic implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:721.e7-12.
  5. Lim HJ, Eun CS, Cho JH, Lee KH, Hwang HS. Factors associated with initial stability of miniscrews for orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:236-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.07.030
  6. Joo E. Radiographic evaluation of interdental distance for orthodontic miniscrew application [thesis]. Seoul: Yonsei University; 2004.
  7. Kim SH, Yoon HG, Choi YS, Hwang EH, Kook YA, Nelson G. Evaluation of interdental space of the maxillary posterior area for orthodontic mini-implants with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:635-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.06.013
  8. Lim JE, Lim WH, Chun YS. Cortical bone thickness and root proximity at mandibular interradicular sites: implications for orthodontic mini-implant placement. Korean J Orthod 2008;38:397-406. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2008.38.6.397
  9. Kuroda S, Yamada K, Deguchi T, Hashimoto T, Kyung HM, Takano-Yamamoto T. Root proximity is a major factor for screw failure in orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131(4 Suppl):S68-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.06.017
  10. Schnelle MA, Beck FM, Jaynes RM, Huja SS. A radiographic evaluation of the availability of bone for placement of miniscrews. Angle Orthod 2004;74:832-7.
  11. Dudic A, Giannopoulou C, Leuzinger M, Kiliaridis S. Detection of apical root resorption after orthodontic treatment by using panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography of super-high resolution. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135:434-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.10.014
  12. Cha JY, Mah J, Sinclair P. Incidental findings in the maxillofacial area with 3-dimensional conebeam imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:7-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.041
  13. Nakagawa Y, Kobayashi K, Ishii H, Mishima A, Ishii H, Asada K, et al. Preoperative application of limited cone beam computerized tomography as an assessment tool before minor oral surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;31:322-6. https://doi.org/10.1054/ijom.2001.0222
  14. Bennemann R, Baxmann M, Keilig L, Reimann S, Braumann B, Bourauel C. Evaluating miniscrew position using orthopantomograms compared to cone-beam computed tomography. J Orofac Orthop 2012;73:236-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-012-0079-y
  15. Larheim TA, Svanaes DB. Reproducibility of rotational panoramic radiography: mandibular linear dimensions and angles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1986;90:45-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(86)90026-0
  16. Stewart JA, Heo G, Glover KE, Williamson PC, Lam EW, Major PW. Factors that relate to treatment duration for patients with palatally impacted maxillary canines. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119:216-25. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.110989
  17. Yitschaky M, Haviv Y, Aframian DJ, Abed Y, Redlich M. Prediction of premolar tooth lengths based on their panoramic radiographic lengths. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33:370-2. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/31287277
  18. Hyomoto M, Kawakami M, Inoue M, Kirita T. Clinical conditions for eruption of maxillary canines and mandibular premolars associated with dentigerous cysts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:515-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.04.001
  19. Mckee IW, Glover KE, Williamson PC, Lam EW, Heo G, Major PW. The effect of vertical and horizontal head positioning in panoramic radiography on mesiodistal tooth angulations. Angle Orthod 2001;71:442-51.
  20. Kambylafkas P, Murdock E, Gilda E, Tallents RH, Kyrkanides S. Validity of panoramic radiographs for measuring mandibular asymmetry. Angle Orthod 2006;76:388-93.
  21. Mckee IW, Williamson PC, Lam EW, Heo G, Glover KE, Major PW. The accuracy of 4 panoramic units in the projection of mesiodistal tooth angulations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:166-75; quiz 192. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.119435
  22. Stramotas S, Geenty JP, Petocz P, Darendeliler MA. Accuracy of linear and angular measurements on panoramic radiographs taken at various positions in vitro. Eur J Orthod 2002;24:43-52. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/24.1.43
  23. Nikneshan S, Sharafi M, Emadi N. Evaluation of the accuracy of linear and angular measurements on panoramic radiographs taken at different positions. Imaging Sci Dent 2013;43:191-6. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2013.43.3.191
  24. Choi BR, Choi DH, Huh KH, Yi WJ, Heo MS, Choi SC, et al. Clinical image quality evaluation for panoramic radiography in Korean dental clinics. Imaging Sci Dent 2012;42:183-90. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2012.42.3.183
  25. Alrbata RH, Momani MQ, Al-Tarawneh AM, Ihyasat A. Optimal force magnitude loaded to orthodontic microimplants: a finite element analysis. Angle Orthod 2016;86:221-6. https://doi.org/10.2319/031115-153.1
  26. Papageorgiou SN, Zogakis IP, Papadopoulos MA. Failure rates and associated risk factors of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142:577-95.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.05.016
  27. Dalessandri D, Salgarello S, Dalessandri M, Lazzaroni E, Piancino M, Paganelli C, et al. Determinants for success rates of temporary anchorage devices in orthodontics: a meta-analysis (n > 50). Eur J Orthod 2014;36:303-13. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjt049
  28. Mayoral G. Treatment results with light wires studied by panoramic radiography. Am J Orthod 1982;81:489-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(82)90428-6
  29. Lucchesi MV, Wood RE, Nortje CJ. Suitability of the panoramic radiograph for assessment of mesiodistal angulation of teeth in the buccal segments of the mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:303-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(88)90055-8
  30. Ursi WJ, Almeida RR, Tavano O, Henriques JF. Assessment of mesiodistal axial inclination through panoramic radiography. J Clin Orthod 1990;24:166-73.
  31. Hong SB, Kusnoto B, Kim EJ, BeGole EA, Hwang HS, Lim HJ. Prognostic factors associated with the success rates of posterior orthodontic miniscrew implants: a subgroup meta-analysis. Korean J Orthod 2016;46:111-26. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2016.46.2.111
  32. Larheim TA, Eggen S. Determination of tooth length with a standardized paralleling technique and calibrated radiographic measuring film. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1979;48:374-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(79)90038-0

Cited by

  1. Use of Mini-Implant Anchorage For Second Molar Mesialization: Comprehensive Approach For Treatment Efficiency Analysis vol.20, pp.None, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1590/pboci.2020.018
  2. Risk factors for orthodontic mini-implants in skeletal anchorage biological stability: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis vol.10, pp.None, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62838-7
  3. Displacement of Mini-implants under Orthodontic Force Loading: A Systematic Review vol.12, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1829
  4. Influence of the Computer-Aided Static Navigation Technique on the Accuracy of the Orthodontic Micro-Screws Placement: An In Vitro Study vol.10, pp.18, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10184127
  5. Influence of the Computer-Aided Static Navigation Technique and Mixed Reality Technology on the Accuracy of the Orthodontic Micro-Screws Placement. An In Vitro Study vol.11, pp.10, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11100964
  6. A Brief Review on Micro-Implants and Their Use in Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics vol.11, pp.22, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/app112210719