Buccal Bone Thickness at Infrazygomatic Crest Site in Thai Growing Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To clarify buccal bone thickness at the infrazygomatic crest site in Thai growing unilateral cleft lip and palate patients, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Materials and Methods: The sample consisted of the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of 40 infrazygomatic crest sites obtained from 20 pretreatment Thai unilateral cleft lip and palate patients (age ranged from 7 to 13 years). Buccal bone thickness at mesiobuccal (MB) root, middle of buccal furcation (B) and distobuccal (DB) root of the maxillary first molar in 5 vertical levels (4.8, 6, 7.2, 8.4 and 9.6 mm) from buccal cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) of the maxillary first molar were measured.
Results: The buccal bone thicknesses at non-cleft side were from 2.23+1.25 to 5.34+3.67 mm from CEJ to root apex. At cleft side, the measurements were declared from 2.57+1.42 to 6.53+3.40 mm. At both sides, the measurements at MB section were greater than those at middle of buccal furcation and DB section, respectively. Moreover, some measurements of cleft side were significantly greater than those of non-cleft side.
Conclusions: This study clarified that the thickness of buccal bone at infrazygomatic crest site in both non-cleft and cleft sides increased from the cemento-enamel junction level towards the apical area and increased from mesial to distal area. We found that the safest area was the middle of buccal furcation at 6-9.6 mm from CEJ. However, the other sites could be used with caution. In addition, the miniscrew placement at cleft side seemed to be safer than at non-cleft side.
Article Details
References
Capelozza Filho L, Normando AD, da Silva Filho OG. Isolated influences of lip and palate surgery on facial growth: comparison of operated and unoperated male adults with UCLP. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1996; 33: 51-56.
Zheng ZW, Fang YM, Lin CX. Isolated influences of surgery repair on maxillofacial growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 74: 1649-1657.
Hermann NV, Jensen BL, Dahl E, Bolund S, Kreiborg S. Craniofacial comparisons in 22-month-old lip-operated children with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate and unilateral incomplete cleft lip. The Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2000; 37: 303-317.
Baumgaertel S, Hans MG. Assessment of infrazygomatic bone depth for mini-screw insertion. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20: 638-642.
Liou EJW, Chen P-H, Wang Y-C, Lin JC-Y. A computed tomographic image study on the thickness of the infrazygomatic crest of the maxilla and its clinical implications for miniscrew insertion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131: 352-356.
Melsen B, Petersen JK, Costa A. Zygoma ligatures: an alternative form of maxillary anchorage. J Clin Orthod 1998; 32: 154-158.
Lin JJ-J. Creative orthodontics: Blending the Damon System & TADs to manage difficult malocclusions. 2nd ed. Teipei: Yong Chieh Co; 2010: 149-178.
Baek S-H, Kim K-W, Choi J-Y. New treatment modality for maxillary hypoplasia in cleft patients: protraction facemask with miniplate anchorage. Angle orthod 2010; 80: 783-791.
Cevidanes L, Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara Jr JA, De Clerck H. Comparison of two protocols for maxillary protraction: bone anchors versus face mask with rapid maxillary expansion. Angle orthod 2010; 80: 799-806.
Ge YS, Liu J, Chen L, Han JL, Guo X. Dentofacial effects of two facemask therapies for maxillary protraction: Miniscrew implants versus rapid maxillary expanders. Angle Orthod 2012; 82: 1083-1091.
Temple KE, Schoolfield J, Noujeim ME, Huynh-Ba G, Lasho DJ, Mealey BL. A cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) study of buccal plate thickness of the maxillary and mandibular posterior dentition. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27: 1072-1078.
Disthaporn S, Suri S, Ross B, et al. Incisor and molar overjet, arch contraction, and molar relationship in the mixed dentition in repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate: A qualitative and quantitative appraisal. Angle Orthod 2017; 87: 603-609.
Farnsworth D, Rossouw PE, Ceen RF, Buschang PH. Cortical bone thickness at common miniscrew implant placement sites. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139: 495-503.
Wilmes B, Rademacher C, Olthoff G, Drescher D. Parameters affecting primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants. J Orofac Orthop 2006; 67: 162-174.
Ono A, Motoyoshi M, Shimizu N. Cortical bone thickness in the buccal posterior region for orthodontic mini-implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 37: 334-340.
Viwattanatipa N, Thanakitcharu S, Uttraravichien A, Pitiphat W. Survival analyses of surgical miniscrews as orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 29-36.
Topouzelis N, Tsaousoglou P. Clinical factors correlated with the success rate of miniscrews in orthodontic treatment. Int J Oral Sci 2012; 4: 38-44.
Plakwicz P, Wyrebek B, Gorska R, Cudzilo D. Periodontal indices and status in 34 growing patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: A split-mouth study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2017; 37: 344-353.
Chun YS, Lim WH. Bone density at interradicular sites: implications for orthodontic mini-implant placement. Orthod Craniofac Res 2009; 12: 25-32.
Lim JE, Lee SJ, Kim YJ, Lim WH, Chun YS. Comparison of cortical bone thickness and root proximity at maxillary and mandibular interradicular sites for orthodontic mini-implant placement. Orthod Craniofac Res 2009; 12: 299-304.
Maino BG, Maino G, Mura P. Spider Screw: skeletal anchorage system. Prog Orthod 2005; 6: 70-81.