American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2010
Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of mini-implants after placement: Is root proximity a major risk factor for failure?
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kim Seong-Hun, Kang Seok-Man, Choi Yong-Suk, Kook Yoon-Ah, Chung Kyu-Rhim, Huang John C
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to determine factors favoring successful mini-implant placement and to evaluate root proximity as a possible risk factor for failure of osseointegration-based mini-implants during orthodontic treatment.
METHODS: Three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography images were used to examine 50 sandblasted, large-grit, and acid-etched surface-treated mini-implants (C-implant, Seoul, Korea) placed in 25 patients. The images were analyzed for 3-dimensional position of the mini-implant (placement angle and depth) and any contact with root surfaces or maxillary sinuses.
RESULTS: There were no remarkable differences in horizontal placement angles in the axial plane and placement depths of the mini-implants, but the vertical placement angle was significantly higher on the left side (24.5 degrees +/- 11.0 degrees ) compared with the right side (11.8 degrees +/- 11.6 degrees ). The horizontal mini-implant placement angle had a greater inclination tendency toward the maxillary first molar, and 11 mini-implants with root proximity showed mesiobuccal contact with the maxillary first molar root. Only 1 failure in 15 mini-implants with root proximity and 1 failure in 35 without root proximity were observed on the images.
CONCLUSIONS: Root proximity alone was not considered a major risk factor for osseointegration-based mini-implant failure.
METHODS: Three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography images were used to examine 50 sandblasted, large-grit, and acid-etched surface-treated mini-implants (C-implant, Seoul, Korea) placed in 25 patients. The images were analyzed for 3-dimensional position of the mini-implant (placement angle and depth) and any contact with root surfaces or maxillary sinuses.
RESULTS: There were no remarkable differences in horizontal placement angles in the axial plane and placement depths of the mini-implants, but the vertical placement angle was significantly higher on the left side (24.5 degrees +/- 11.0 degrees ) compared with the right side (11.8 degrees +/- 11.6 degrees ). The horizontal mini-implant placement angle had a greater inclination tendency toward the maxillary first molar, and 11 mini-implants with root proximity showed mesiobuccal contact with the maxillary first molar root. Only 1 failure in 15 mini-implants with root proximity and 1 failure in 35 without root proximity were observed on the images.
CONCLUSIONS: Root proximity alone was not considered a major risk factor for osseointegration-based mini-implant failure.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Acid Etching, DentalAdultBicuspidCephalometryCone-Beam Computed TomographyDental EtchingDental ImplantsFemaleHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMaleMalocclusion, Angle Class IMalocclusion, Angle Class IIMaxillaMaxillary SinusMolarOrthodontic Anchorage ProceduresOrthodontic Appliance DesignOsseointegrationRadiography, PanoramicRisk FactorsSurface PropertiesTooth Root