腭正中旁区支持组织厚度和腭穹窿形态相关性的三维评估

doi:10.13591/j.cnki.kqyx.2024.01.008

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To measure the thickness of palatal supporting tissue in the paramedian section of the palate in orthodontic patients with different palatal vault morphology by cone beam computed tomography(CBCT), and analyze the safe area of placement of orthodontic mini-implants in the paramedian section of the palate, so as to provide reference for clinical orthodontic treatment. Methods A total of 72 adolescent orthodontic patients(36 males and 36 females)were randomly recruited. According to the height width ratio of the palatal vault, they were divided into the high palatal vault group and the low palatal vault group. CBCT image analysis method was used to measure the thickness of supporting tissue at various points in the maxillary paramedian region. Results The thickness of mucosa at the third palatal ruga was higher than that at other sites, and the palatal mucosa gradually thickened from inside to outside. It was generally thicker in the high palatal vault group than that in the low palatal vault group. The thickness of palatal bone and total supporting tissue was high in the middle and low on both sides from the anterior and posterior directions. The thickness of palatal bone tissue was the largest at 2 mm behind the third palatal ruga and it gradually increased from inside to outside at 4 mm before the third palatal ruga, and the position behind it was the opposite. It was generally higher in the low palatal vault group than that in the high palatal vault group. The thickness of the total supporting tissue of the palate was the largest at the third palatal ruga and 2 mm behind it. It gradually increased from inside to outside and in the low palatal vault group, it was slightly higher than that in the high palatal vault group. Conclusion In the low palatal vault group, the palatal micro-implant anchorage has higher stability. It is more suitable for patients in the high palatal vault group to implant micro-implant anchorage within the range of 5-9 mm away from the mid palatal suture and 2 mm behind the third palatal ruga.

Key words: paramedian section of the palate, micro-implant anchorage, palatal vault morphology, CBCT

CLC Number:

R783.5

ZHOU Ju, MA Junqing. Three-dimensional evaluation of the correlation between thickness of supporting tissue in the palatal paramedian section and palatal vault morphology[J]. Stomatology, 2024, 44(1): 36-40.

Figures/Tables 4

Fig.1

Tab.1

Tab.2

Fig.2

References 19

[1]	陈旭, 李博晟, 张京剧. 上颌种植支抗结合颌间牵引在青少年骨性Ⅲ类错牙合患者中的应用及疗效评价[J]. 口腔医学, 2021, 41(3):231-236.
[2]	Möhlhenrich SC, Heussen N, Winterhalder P, et al. Predicting primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants, according to position, screw-size, and bone quality, in the maxilla of aged patients:A cadaveric study[J]. Eur J Oral Sci, 2019, 127(5):462-471. doi: 10.1111/eos.12651 pmid: 31553084
[3]	Inchingolo AM, Malcangi G, Costa S, et al. Tooth complications after orthodontic miniscrews insertion[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2023, 20(2):1562. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20021562
[4]	Kim HK, Moon SC, Lee SJ, et al. Three-dimensional biometric study of palatine rugae in children with a mixed-model analysis:A 9-year longitudinal study[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2012, 141(5):590-597. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.11.018
[5]	Afrashtehfar KI. Patient and miniscrew implant factors influence the success of orthodontic miniscrew implants[J]. Evid Based Dent, 2016, 17(4):109-110. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401202 pmid: 27980330
[6]	Al Amri MS, Sabban HM, Alsaggaf DH, et al. Anatomical consideration for optimal position of orthodontic miniscrews in the maxilla:A CBCT appraisal[J]. Ann Saudi Med, 2020, 40(4):330-337. doi: 10.5144/0256-4947.2020.330
[7]	Moudi E, Haghanifar S, Johari M, et al. Evaluation of the cone-beam computed tomography accuracy in measuring soft tissue thickness in different areas of the jaws[J]. J Indian Soc Periodontol, 2019, 23(4):334-338. doi: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_675_18 pmid: 31367130
[8]	Howell S. Assessment of palatal height in children[J]. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol, 1981, 9(1):44-47. doi: 10.1111/com.1981.9.issue-1
[9]	Perkiömäki MR, Alvesalo L. Palatine ridges and tongue position in Turner syndrome subjects[J]. Eur J Orthod, 2008, 30(2):163-168. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjm118
[10]	Ueno D, Sekiguchi R, Morita M, et al. Palatal mucosal measurements in a Japanese population using cone-beam computed tomography[J]. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2014, 26(1):48-58. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12053 pmid: 24548316
[11]	Song JE, Um YJ, Kim CS, et al. Thickness of posterior palatal masticatory mucosa:The use of computerized tomography[J]. J Periodontol, 2008, 79(3):406-412. doi: 10.1902/jop.2008.070302
[12]	Nucera R, Costa S, Bellocchio AM, et al. Evaluation of palatal bone depth, cortical bone, and mucosa thickness for optimal orthodontic miniscrew placement performed according to the third palatal ruga clinical reference[J]. Eur J Orthod, 2022, 44(5):530-536. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjac007
[13]	Ryu JH, Park JH, Thu TVT, et al. Palatal bone thickness compared with cone-beam computed tomography in adolescents and adults for mini-implant placement[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2012, 142(2):207-212. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.03.027
[14]	Kim YH, Yang SM, Kim S, et al. Midpalatal miniscrews for orthodontic anchorage:Factors affecting clinical success[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2010, 137(1):66-72. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.036
[15]	Winsauer H, Vlachojannis C, Bumann A, et al. Paramedian vertical palatal bone height for mini-implant insertion:A systematic review[J]. Eur J Orthod, 2014, 36(5):541-549. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjs068
[16]	Wehrbein H, Merz BR, Diedrich P. Palatal bone support for orthodontic implant anchorage:A clinical and radiological study[J]. Eur J Orthod, 1999, 21(1):65-70. doi: 10.1093/ejo/21.1.65
[17]	Hourfar J, Bister D, Lux CJ, et al. Anatomic landmarks and availability of bone for placement of orthodontic mini-implants for normal and short maxillary body lengths[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2017, 151(5):878-886. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.09.024
[18]	Maino BG, Maino G, Mura P. Spider screw: Skeletal anchorage system[J]. Prog Orthod, 2005, 6(1):70-81. pmid: 15891786
[19]	Wilmes B, Ludwig B, Vasudavan S, et al. The T-zone: Median vs. paramedian insertion of palatal mini-implants[J]. J Clin Orthod, 2016, 50(9):543-551.

位点	MT			BST			TST
位点	TR	R2	R4	TR	R2	R4	TR	R2	R4
A8	^d2.93±0.71^b	^gh3.18±0.80^ab	^m3.47±0.78^a	ⁱ2.33±1.30^b	^o2.65±0.92^ab*	^t3.11±1.11^a*	ⁱ5.26±1.34^b	^o5.83±1.01^a*	^u6.58±1.27^a*
A6	^de2.73±0.75^c	^gh3.26±0.89^b	^lm3.75±0.98^a	^h2.69±1.54^b	ⁿ2.89±1.30^ab*	^s3.17±1.23^a*	^h5.42±1.30^b*	ⁿ6.14±1.66^a	^t6.92±1.73^a
A4	^ef2.34±0.84^c*	^h3.09±0.94^b	^kl4.28±1.27^a	^g4.90±2.13^a	^m5.16±1.79^a*	^r5.37±1.59^a*	^g7.24±2.02^b	^m8.29±1.93^a*	^s9.65±2.39^a
A2	^f2.10±0.74^c	^h3.13±1.13^b	^jk4.57±1.39^a	^f6.67±2.54^a	^l6.18±1.98^a*	^q5.81±2.00^a	^f8.77±2.45^a	^l9.31±2.59^a*	^r10.38±2.54^a
TR	^de2.78±0.93^c*	^g3.80±1.39^b	ⁱ5.31±1.43^a	^d8.33±2.34^a*	^j8.15±2.28^a	^p8.01±2.84^a	^d11.11±2.37^a*	^j11.95±2.73^a	^p13.32±3.14^a
P2	^de2.56±0.97^c*	^gh3.48±1.50^b	^ijk4.88±1.52^a	^d8.58±2.13^a	^j8.52±2.06^a	^p8.42±1.87^a	^d11.14±1.98^b	^j12.00±2.31^a	^p13.30±2.49^a
P4	^def2.50±1.12^c*	^gh3.66±1.39^b	^ij4.96±1.36^a	^e8.12±2.14^a	^k7.54±1.90^a	^q6.98±1.85^a	^e10.62±2.34^b*	^k11.20±2.00^a	^q11.94±1.85^a
P6	^def2.51±0.95^c	^g3.81±1.43^b*	^ijk4.74±1.29^a	^g5.49±1.16^a*	^m5.34±1.86^a	^f5.23±1.91^a	^f8.00±1.30^b*	^m9.15±2.33^b	^r9.97±1.83^a
P8	^de2.62±0.90^c*	^gh3.69±1.17^b*	^ijk4.68±1.23^a	^h3.91±0.99^a*	ⁿ3.78±1.29^a	^s3.54±1.43^a	^h6.53±1.21^b*	^no7.47±1.97^b*	^s8.22±1.39^a*

位点	MT			BST			TST
位点	TR	R2	R4	TR	R2	R4	TR	R2	R4
A8	^d2.44±0.61^b	^h2.80±0.70^a	^k3.06±0.78^a	ⁱ2.98±1.41^a	^o3.20±1.56^a*	^v3.63±1.73^a*	ⁱ5.42±1.40^b	^o6.00±1.67^ab*	^v6.69±1.93^a*
A6	^ef2.08±0.64^c	^h2.77±0.87^b	^jk3.34±0.97^a	^h4.10±1.85^a	ⁿ4.33±1.83^a*	^u4.53±1.90^a*	^h6.18±1.91^b*	ⁿ7.10±1.69^b	^u7.87±2.14^a
A4	^fg1.82±0.45^c*	^h2.74±0.88^b	^ijk3.81±1.16^a	^g5.54±2.25^a	^m5.65±2.36^a*	^t6.05±2.82^a*	^g7.36±2.20^b	^m8.39±2.40^ab*	^t9.86±3.03^a
A2	^g1.74±0.44^c	^h2.55±1.20^b	^jk4.05±1.21^a	^f7.55±2.83^a	^l7.11±2.89^a*	^r6.55±1.81^a	^f9.29±2.76^a	^l9.66±3.36^a*	^r10.60±2.63^a
TR	^e2.46±0.47^c*	^h3.31±1.17^b	ⁱ4.69±1.50^a	^d9.05±1.78^a*	^j8.78±2.28^a	^p8.70±2.40^a	^d11.51±1.81^b*	^j12.09±2.62^b	^p13.39±3.25^a
P2	^g1.85±0.42^c*	^h2.90±1.67^b	^ij4.44±1.67^a	^d9.35±2.19^a	^j9.23±1.64^a	^p9.12±1.92^a	^d11.20±1.82^b	^j12.13±2.41^b	^p13.56±2.73^a
P4	^efg1.88±0.49^c*	^h2.80±1.25^b	^ij3.83±1.46^a	^e8.81±1.89^a	^k8.51±1.98^ab	^q8.24±2.41^b	^e10.69±1.89^b*	^k11.31±1.87^ab	^q12.07±2.29^a
P6	^efg1.91±0.59^c	^h2.87±0.98^b*	^ij3.80±1.09^a	^f6.95±1.75^a*	^m6.48±1.98^ab	^s6.31±2.30^b	^f8.86±1.83^b*	^m9.35±1.99^ab	^s10.11±2.26^a
P8	^efg1.93±0.50^c*	^h2.98±0.79^b*	^ij3.81±1.05^a	^h4.68±1.76^a*	ⁿ4.62±1.24^a	^u4.56±1.82^a	^h6.61±1.77^b*	ⁿ7.60±1.56^ab*	^u8.37±1.90^a*

Three-dimensional evaluation of the correlation between thickness of supporting tissue in the palatal paramedian section and palatal vault morphology

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 4

References 19

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	CHEN Yun, CAO Ling, WANG Yaxin, YU Jiannan. A retrospective study on 815 maxillary supernumerary teeth in children [J]. Stomatology, 2023, 43(8): 717-721.
[2]	WANG Zhifan, DAI Xiubin, ZHOU Yanqi, MAO Tianyi, HUANG Hong, SONG Hongcheng, WANG Dongmiao. Automated detection of mandibular third molar root contacting with inferior alveolar canal on panoramic radiographs using a lite one-stage deep learning model [J]. Stomatology, 2023, 43(6): 534-539.
[3]	LIU Jinming,WU Wenli,DU Lingyi,SHEN Ming. Radiological measurement and analysis of trans-inferior alveolar nerve implantation [J]. Stomatology, 2023, 43(2): 130-134.
[4]	HAN Yuhuan,WU Wanchao,WANG Peiru,LI Lijie. The association between the anatomic landmarks of the pulp chamber and the prevalence of middle mesial canals in mandibular first molars: A cone-beam computed tomography study [J]. Stomatology, 2023, 43(12): 1096-1100.
[5]	WANG Kaili, YE Zelin, YOU Meng, WANG Hu. Content and development method of standardizing documents for clinical use of oro-maxillofacial cone-beam computed tomography [J]. Stomatology, 2023, 43(11): 961-967.
[6]	CHENG Aoran, WANG Jue, FAN Yawei. Analysis of morphological and morphometric characteristics of canalis sinuosus and its accessory canals: A cone-beam CT study [J]. Stomatology, 2023, 43(10): 903-909.
[7]	SONG Hongcheng, HUANG Hong, WANG Zhifan, JING Qiuping, WANG Dongmiao. Comparison of panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography images for detecting external root resorption of mandibular second molar associated with third molar impaction [J]. Stomatology, 2023, 43(1): 70-74.
[8]	SU Yongkuan, PAN Yongchu, LI Yuan, LUO Yao, HOU Wei, HAN Linfei. Analysis of upper airway symmetry between patients with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate and skeletal Class Ⅰ [J]. Stomatology, 2022, 42(7): 617-621.
[9]	YAN Qinyue, CAO Dan, YAN Bin. Morphological anomalies of atlas in patients with maxillary impacted canines: a cone-beam computed tomography study [J]. Stomatology, 2022, 42(5): 437-441.
[10]	TANG Shiyu, AILIMAIERDAN Ainiwaer, MA Tinglin, SU Qingling, WANG Shan, WANG Ling. Correlation between extraction of maxillary third molar and perforation of maxillary sinus based on CBCT [J]. Stomatology, 2022, 42(4): 327-331.
[11]	LIU Weiwei, MA Junqing. CBCT-assisted evaluation of distance from cementoenamel junction to alveolar crest in Class Ⅰ extraction cases [J]. Stomatology, 2022, 42(11): 1011-1014.
[12]	LU Jianfeng, GUO Haibo, QIU Jing. The clinical study on micro-osteoperforations aiding to depress molars in orthodontic treatment before restoration [J]. Stomatology, 2022, 42(11): 1000-1005.
[13]	. A preliminary study on the common indexes of the CBCT 3D cephalometric analysis [J]. , 2021, 41(8): 720-723.
[14]	Jun-Jie YE. CBCT analysis of bone characteristics of mandibular retromolar trigone and anterior ramus region in adult with different sagittal skeletal patterns [J]. , 2021, 41(6): 509-513.
[15]	. Evaluation of the effect of corticotomy combined with bone augmentation surgery in the mandibular anterior teeth on labial bone augmentation [J]. , 2021, 41(6): 499-502.