Journal List > Korean J Orthod > v.41(5) > 1043677

Jang, Lee, Cha, Chung, and Lee: Comparison of palatal bone thickness between 3D model and lateral cephalometric radiograph

Abstract

Objective

This study compared the bone thickness of the palate between lateral cephalogram and 3D model measurements.

Methods

The subjects consisted of 30 adults (15 men,15 women) with a normal skeletal pattern and occlusion. The CT images were transformed to a 3D model, and were compared with the cephalometric image. Descriptive statistics for each variable were calculated.

Results

In the 3D CT model, the mid-palatal area was the thickest part. It became thinner as the palate tapered laterally. In the male group, the thinnest portion was positioned 6 mm away from the mid-palate, while in the female group the thinnest portion was 8mm away from the mid-palate. Correlation analysis between the lateral cephalometric and 3D CT model revealed a significant correlation except in the mid palatal area and the area 2 mm lateral to the mid-palate in men, whereas there was a significant relationship in every area in the women. In both men and women, the highest correlation appeared in the area 8 mm lateral to the mid palate.

Conclusions

Using regression analysis, an actual prediction of the bone thickness between the measured bone thickness of the lateral cephalometric radiograph and 3D model was made. This will provide useful information for mini-implant length selection when inserting into the palate.

REFERENCES

1.Kyung SH., Lim JK., Park YC. The use of miniscrew as an anchorage for the orthodontic tooth movement. Korean J Orthod. 2001. 31:415–24.
2.Kanomi R. Mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage. J Clin Orthod. 1997. 31:763–7.
3.Costa A., Raffainl M., Melsen B. Miniscrews as orthodontic anchorage: a preliminary report. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1998. 13:201–9.
4.Kyung SH. A study on the bone thickness of midpalatal suture area for miniscrew insertion. Korean J Orthod. 2004. 34:63–70.
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.
crossref
6.Park YC., Lee JS., Kim DH. Anatomical characteristics of the midpalatal suture area for miniscrew implantation using CT image. Korean J Orthod. 2005. 35:35–42.
7.Henriksen B., Bavitz B., Kelly B., Harn SD. Evaluation of bone thickness in the anterior hard palate relative to midsagittal orthodontic implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003. 18:578–81.
8.Wehrbein H., Merz BR., Diedrich P. Palatal bone support for orthodontic implant anchorage--a clinical and radiological study. Eur J Orthod. 1999. 21:65–70.
9.Kim HJ., Yun HS., Park HD., Kim DH., Park YC. Soft-tissue and cortical-bone thickness at orthodontic implant sites. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006. 130:177–82.
crossref
10.Waitzman AA., Posnick JC., Armstrong DC., Pron GE. Craniofacial skeleton measurements based on computed tomography: part I. Accuracy and reproducibility. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992. 29:112–7.
11.Masumoto T., Hayashi I., Kawamura A., Tanaka K., Kasai K. Relationships among facial type, buccolingual molar inclination, and cortical bone thickness of the mandible. Eur J Orthod. 2001. 23:15–23.
crossref
12.Kim DH., Lee JW., Cha KS., Chung DH. Consideration of maxillary sinus bone thickness when installing miniscrews. Korean J Orthod. 2009. 39:354–61.
crossref
13.Bernhart T., Vollgruber A., Gahleitner A., Dörtbudak O., Haas R. Alternative to the median region of the palate for placement of an orthodontic implant. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000. 11:595–601.
crossref
14.Kang S., Lee SJ., Ahn SJ., Heo MS., Kim TW. Bone thickness of the palate for orthodontic mini-implant anchorage in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007. 131(4 Suppl):S74–81.
crossref
15.Gracco A., Lombardo L., Cozzani M., Siciliani G. Quantitative cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of palatal bone thickness for orthodontic miniscrew placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008. 134:361–9.
crossref
16.Baumgaertel S. Quantitative investigation of palatal bone depth and cortical bone thickness for mini-implant placement in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009. 136:104–8.
crossref
17.Park HS., Lee YJ., Jeong SH., Kwon TG. Density of the alveolar and basal bones of the maxilla and the mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008. 133:30–7.
crossref
18.Park YC., Lee SY., Kim DH., Jee SH. Intrusion of posterior teeth using mini-screw implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003. 123:690–4.
crossref
19.Kyung SH., Hong SG., Park YC. Distalization of maxillary molars with a midpalatal miniscrew. J Clin Orthod. 2003. 37:22–6.
20.Kim SJ., Lim SH. Anatomic study of the incisive canal in relation to midpalatal placement of mini-implant. Korean J Orthod. 2009. 39:146–58.
crossref
21.Wehrbein H., Merz BR., Hämmerle CH., Lang NP. Bone-to-implant contact of orthodontic implants in humans subjected to horizontal loading. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998. 9:348–53.
22.Motoyoshi M., Inaba M., Ono A., Ueno S., Shimizu N. The effect of cortical bone thickness on the stability of orthodontic mini-implants and on the stress distribution in surrounding bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009. 38:13–8.
crossref
23.Harrell WE. 3D orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. In: McNamara JA, Kapila S editors. Craniofacial growth series. Vol 43. Digital radiography and three-dimensional imaging. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan;2006. p. 147–58.

Fig 1.
Set up of common reference plane.
kjod-41-312_f1.tif
Fig 3.
Measurement of bone thickness on lateral cephalogram.
kjod-41-312_f2.tif
Fig 2.
Reconstruction procedure of 3D model. A, Cutting the 3-D model at the vertical reference plane; B, mid palatal point of 3D model.
kjod-41-312_f3.tif
Fig 4.
Measurement of bone thickness in the 3D model. Rt, Right; Lt, left.
kjod-41-312_f4.tif
Fig 5.
Mean palatal bone thickness left and right of the suture in the male group. Ceph, Cephalogram; CT, computed tomography; Rt, right; Lt, left.
kjod-41-312_f5.tif
Fig 6.
Mean palatal bone thickness left and right of the suture in the female group. Ceph, Cephalogram; CT, computed tomography; Rt, right; Lt, left.
kjod-41-312_f6.tif
Fig 7.
Comparison of bone thickness between male and female in the 3D model. CT, Computed tomography; Rt, right; Lt, left. *p < 0.05.
kjod-41-312_f7.tif
Table 1.
Point registration
Landmark Definition
Lateral Porion The most superior point of external acoustic meatus
cephalogram Orbitale The most inferior point of bony orbit
Contact point Contact point between second premolar and first molar in maxilla
Point upper Upper intersection point between vertical reference plane and maxilla
Point lower Lower intersection point between vertical reference plane and maxilla
Maxilla Outer line of maxilla cortical bone
Computed Contact point (Rt., Lt.) Contact point between second premolar and first molar in maxilla
tomography Porion (Rt., Lt.) The most superior point of external acoustic meatus
Orbitale (Lt.) The most inferior point of bony orbit
Crista galli The most superior point of Crista galli
ANS Anterior nasal spine
PNS Posterior nasal spine
Mid palatal point Intersection point between vertical reference plane and mid sagittal plane on the
palatal surface of maxilla

Rt., rightå Lt., leftå ANS, anterior nasal spine; PNS, posterior nasal spine.

Table 2.
Plane registration
Reference plane Definition
Lateral FH plane The plane passing porion and orbitale
cephalogram Vertical reference plane The plane perpendicular to FH plane passing through the contact point
between upper second premolar and first molar
Computed FH plane The plane passing right and left porion and left orbitale
tomography Vertical reference plane The plane perpendicular to FH plane passing right and left contact points
between upper second premolar and first molar
Mid sagittal plane The plane passing crista galli, ANS and PNS

FH, Frankfort; ANS, anterior nasal spine; PNS, posterior nasal spine.

Table 3.
Descriptive statistics of bone thickness
Gender Thickness
(mm)
Lateral
cephalogram
Computed tomography
Rt. Rt. Rt. Rt. Rt. M Lt. Lt. Lt. Lt. Lt.
10 mm 8 mm 6 mm 4 mm 2 mm 2 mm 4 mm 6 mm 8 mm 10 mm
Male Mean 4.21 6.18 4.47 4.24 4.80 5.45 7.85 5.56 5.00 4.36 4.38 6.04
SD 1.03 1.66 1.23 1.16 1.28 1.02 1.41 1.17 1.13 1.22 1.24 1.42
Max 6.09 10.45 7.21 6.19 6.93 6.75 9.65 6.81 6.41 6.45 7.09 8.98
Min 2.48 4.44 2.54 2.27 2.49 3.79 5.50 3.45 2.60 2.00 2.10 3.94
Female Mean 2.71 4.22 2.87 2.97 3.60 4.53 5.84 4.47 3.62 3.06 3.01 4.15
SD 1.62 1.68 1.30 1.23 1.32 1.31 1.13 1.38 1.37 1.23 1.42 1.77
Max 6.02 7.22 5.42 5.52 6.19 7.26 8.16 7.63 6.91 5.70 5.70 6.88
Min 1.18 1.54 1.35 1.05 1.51 2.87 4.23 2.43 2.00 1.54 1.45 2.02

Rt., Right; M, mid palatal point; Lt., left; SD, standard deviation; Max, maximun; Min, minimum.

Table 4.
Bone thickness correlation analysis between lateral cephalogram and 3D model
Gender Rt. Rt. Rt. Rt. Rt. M Lt. Lt. Lt. Lt. Lt.
10 mm 8 mm 6 mm 4 mm 2 mm 2 mm 4 mm 6 mm 8 mm 10 mm
Male R 0.848 0.903 0.879 0.679 0.296 0.540 0.441 0.718 0.847 0.869 0.782
p—value * - - - *
Female R 0.832 0.927 0.917 0.846 0.806 0.765 0.671 0.840 0.885 0.941 0.884
p—value *

Rt., Rightå M, mid palatal pointå Lt., left.

* p<0.05;

p<0.01.

Table 5.
Bone thickness regression analysis between lateral cephalogram and 3D model
Gender Rt. Rt. Rt. Rt. Rt. M Lt. Lt. Lt. Lt. Lt.
10 mm 8 mm 6 mm 4 mm 2 mm 2 mm 4 mm 6 mm 8 mm 10 mm
Male B 1.265 1.042 0.958 0.891 0.747 1.046 1.089 1.174
Y—int. 0.856 0.089 0.208 1.054 1.858 —0.037 —0.206 1.102
R2 0.611 0.756 0.718 0.515 0.461 0.773 0.816 0.718
β 0.782 0.869 0.847 0.718 0.679 0.879 0.903 0.848
Female B 0.915 0.756 0.669 0.685 0.544 0.535 0.688 0.716 0.694 0.811 0.909
Y—int. 1.744 0.827 1.157 1.748 3.060 4.387 2.610 1.684 1.179 0.818 1.693
R2 0.782 0.885 0.784 0.705 0.450 0.585 0.650 0.715 0.841 0.859 0.693
β 0.884 0.941 0.885 0.840 0.671 0.765 0.806 0.846 0.917 0.927 0.832

Rt., Right; M, mid palatal point; Lt., left; Y—int., Y-intercept.

TOOLS
Similar articles