Accuracy of orthodontic mini-implants placed at the anterior palate by tooth-borne or gingiva-borne guide support: a cadaveric study
- 33 Downloads
The aim of this cadaveric study was to measure the transfer accuracy of orthodontic mini-implant placement at the anterior palate depending on tooth-borne or gingiva-borne guide support.
Materials and methods
Forty orthodontic mini-implants were placed paramedian in the anterior palate of 20 cadaver heads using tooth-borne (TBG) or gingiva-borne guides (GBG). Placement was planned after superimposition of lateral cephalograms and corresponding plaster models. After mini-implant placement, digital impressions were taken with scanbodies. For the measurement of both linear and angle deviations, virtual planning models and postoperative oral scans were compared using automatic surface registration based on an iterative closest point algorithm.
Statistical differences between TBG and GBG were detected for lateral deviations 0.88 mm (SD 0.46) versus 1.65 mm (SD 1.03) (p = .004) and sagittal angular deviations 3.67° (SD 2.25) versus 6.46° (SD 5.5) (p = .043). No differences were found for vertical deviations 2.34 mm (SD 0.74) versus 2.14 mm (SD 0.73) (p = .40) and transverse angular deviations 3.60° (SD 2.89) versus 4.06° (SD 3.04) (p = .62).
The use of surgical guides based on silicone provides sufficient control of orthodontic mini-implant placement and is comparable to CAD/CAM templates. However, when compared with guided dental implantology, the planned mini-implant position is more inaccurate. However, accuracy can be significantly increased by guide extension involving the teeth. Clinical investigations have to prove if the accuracy is sufficient for receiving an orthodontic appliance.
The use of lateral cephalograms and plaster models for silicone guide construction leads to lower radiation exposure and provides sufficient accuracy for palatal orthodontic mini-implant placement.
KeywordsOrthodontics Mini-implant Orthodontic implants Transfer accuracy Surgical guides Surgical templates Temporary anchorage device (TAD)
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with living human participants or animals. Institutional approval was given.
Sources of support
The orthodontic mini-implants were provided free of charge by OrthoLox, Promedia Medizintechnik A Ahnfeldt GmbH, Siegen, Germany.
- 5.Lee JS, Kim DH, Park YC, Kyung SH, Kim TK (2004) The efficient use of midpalatal miniscrew implants. Angle Orthod 74:711–714. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0711:TEUOMM>2.0.CO;2 Google Scholar
- 8.Gracco A, Lombardo L, Cozzani M, Siciliani G (2006) Quantitative evaluation with CBCT of palatal bone thickness in growing patients. Prog Orthod 7:164–174Google Scholar
- 12.Ludwig B, Glasl B, Bowman SJ, Wilmes B, Kinzinger GS, Lisson JA (2011) Anatomical guidelines for miniscrew insertion: palatal sites. J Clin Orthod 45:433–441 quiz 467Google Scholar
- 13.Hourfar J, Kanavakis G, Bister D, Schatzle M, Awad L, Nienkemper M, Goldbecher C, Ludwig B (2015) Three dimensional anatomical exploration of the anterior hard palate at the level of the third ruga for the placement of mini-implants--a cone-beam CT study. Eur J Orthod 37:589–595. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cju093 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Maino BG, Paoletto E, Lombardo L 3rd, Siciliani G (2016) A three-dimensional digital insertion guide for palatal miniscrew placement. J Clin Orthod 50:12–22Google Scholar
- 24.Wassell RW, Barker D, Walls AW (2002) Crowns and other extra-coronal restorations: impression materials and technique. Br Dent J 192(679–84):687–690Google Scholar
- 25.Kanomi R (1997) Mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage. J Clin Orthod 31:763–767Google Scholar
- 26.Nienkemper M, Pauls A, Ludwig B, Wilmes B, Drescher D (2012) Multifunctional use of palatal mini-implants. J Clin Orthod 46:679–686 quiz 703-4Google Scholar
- 28.Tosun T, Keles A, Erverdi N (2002) Method for the placement of palatal implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17:95–100Google Scholar