Evaluation of palatal support tissues for placement of orthodontic mini-implants in mouth breathers with high-narrow palates versus nose breathers with normal palates: a retrospective study.

Qichao Kang, Chang Cha, Desheng Huang, Sihui Zuo, Xiulin Yan
Author Information
  1. Qichao Kang: Department of Orthodontics, School of Stomatology, China Medical University, NO.117, Nanjing North Street, Heping District, Shenyang, 110002, Liaoning, China.
  2. Chang Cha: Department of Orthodontics, School of Stomatology, China Medical University, NO.117, Nanjing North Street, Heping District, Shenyang, 110002, Liaoning, China.
  3. Desheng Huang: Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.
  4. Sihui Zuo: Department of Orthodontics, School of Stomatology, China Medical University, NO.117, Nanjing North Street, Heping District, Shenyang, 110002, Liaoning, China.
  5. Xiulin Yan: Department of Orthodontics, School of Stomatology, China Medical University, NO.117, Nanjing North Street, Heping District, Shenyang, 110002, Liaoning, China. chbyxl@163.com. ORCID

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the palatal total support tissues (TSTs) and bone support tissues (BSTs) at 5-mm paramedian section to the midsagittal suture between mouth breathers with high-narrow palates and nose breathers with normal palates and confirm the practicability and limitation on superimposition of lateral cephalograms and plaster models for orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) implantation in these patients.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 27 mouth breathers with high-narrow palates (study group (SG)) and 27 nose breathers with normal palates (control group (CG)). Upper digital dental models were superimposed with corresponding cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images; then, TSTs and BSTs vertical to the curvature of the palatal mucosa were measured on the 5-mm paramedian section to the midsagittal suture. The measuring sites were the third ruga (R) and the sites anterior and posterior to R at 2-mm interval (A, A, A, and A; P, P, P, and P) along the palatal mucosa outline. TSTs and BSTs were also measured on the superimposition of lateral cephalograms and plaster models, and the site with the largest TST value in each patient was recorded. Descriptive statistics, independent-samples t test, and hierarchical clustering heat map were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: The greatest average values of TSTs and BSTs in SG were 12.24 ± 2.63 mm and 9.59 ± 2.36 mm at P site, and those in CG were 12.96 ± 2.39 mm and 10.56 ± 2.38 mm at R site, respectively. The average values of both TSTs and BSTs in SG were less than those in CG at all insertion sites. Significant differences (P < 0.05) were found at A, A, and R for TSTs and at R and P for BSTs. P and R were clustered together for both TSTs and BSTs by the cluster analysis on heat map in both SG and CG. In both groups, only one patient from SG was found to have the insertion site with the largest TST value on 2D superimposition located in the blue area on the heat map, where the measurement values of TSTs were less than 8.5 mm and those of BSTs were less than 5 mm.
CONCLUSIONS: Mouth breathers with high-narrow palates may have less palatal support tissues than nose breathers with normal palates at 5-mm paramedian section to the midsagittal suture of palate. The site a little posterior to R is more suitable for OMI implantation in mouth breathers. Two-dimensional superimposition of lateral cephalograms and plaster models can provide relatively effective assessment for the site choice of OMI implantation in both mouth breathers with high-narrow palates and nose breathers with normal palates.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Three-dimensional superimposition of CBCT data and digital dental model can provide accurate information for palatal OMI implantation. Meanwhile, 2D superimposition of lateral cephalograms and plaster models can be used for assessing the implantation sites at 5-mm paramedian section to the midsagittal suture of palates in mouth breathers under most conditions even those who have less palatal support tissues.

Keywords

References

  1. Angle Orthod. 2016 Sep;86(5):826-31 [PMID: 26998809]
  2. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Jun;25(6):653-8 [PMID: 23551587]
  3. Eur J Orthod. 2008 Apr;30(2):163-8 [PMID: 18281708]
  4. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Jun;14(3):400-5 [PMID: 20132245]
  5. Clin Oral Investig. 2017 Mar;21(2):541-549 [PMID: 27480619]
  6. Angle Orthod. 2008 Jan;78(1):77-82 [PMID: 18193952]
  7. Int J Oral Sci. 2010 Jun;2(2):98-104 [PMID: 20737936]
  8. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Sep;134(3):361-9 [PMID: 18774082]
  9. J Clin Orthod. 2011 Aug;45(8):433-41; quiz 467 [PMID: 22094724]
  10. J Craniofac Surg. 2017 Sep;28(6):1468-1471 [PMID: 28841595]
  11. Angle Orthod. 2010 Jul;80(4):531-6 [PMID: 20482359]
  12. Eur J Orthod. 2014 Oct;36(5):541-9 [PMID: 23221896]
  13. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2004 Summer;28(4):315-8 [PMID: 15366619]
  14. J Clin Orthod. 2016 Sep;50(9):543-551 [PMID: 27809213]
  15. Eur J Orthod. 2017 Feb;39(1):76-84 [PMID: 27036133]
  16. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014 Jul;78(7):1167-72 [PMID: 24833165]
  17. Eur J Orthod. 2015 Aug;37(4):373-8 [PMID: 25336563]
  18. Angle Orthod. 1973 Apr;43(2):201-6 [PMID: 4512000]
  19. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000 Dec;11(6):595-601 [PMID: 11168253]
  20. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 May;151(5):878-886 [PMID: 28457265]
  21. PLoS One. 2014 Nov 05;9(11):e111988 [PMID: 25372567]
  22. Angle Orthod. 2006 Sep;76(5):745-51 [PMID: 17029505]
  23. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Jul;19(7):665-9 [PMID: 18492083]
  24. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 May;145(5):558-64 [PMID: 24785918]
  25. Eur J Orthod. 2018 May 25;40(3):281-284 [PMID: 29069383]
  26. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 Jun;22(6):664-8 [PMID: 21044170]
  27. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Feb;145(2):165-72 [PMID: 24485730]
  28. Angle Orthod. 2015 Mar;85(2):211-7 [PMID: 24998911]
  29. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Apr;131(4 Suppl):S74-81 [PMID: 17448390]
  30. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Nov;136(5):630.e1-7; discussion 630-1 [PMID: 19892274]
  31. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1981 Feb;9(1):44-7 [PMID: 6941877]
  32. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Jan;133(1):81-6 [PMID: 18174076]

Grants

  1. LK201607/Project of Science and Technology Research from Department of Education of Liaoning Province

MeSH Term

Adolescent
Child
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Dental Implants
Female
Humans
Male
Mouth Breathing
Nose
Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures
Palate
Retrospective Studies

Chemicals

Dental Implants

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0breatherspalatesTSTsBSTspalatalRPmouthsuperimpositionsitesupporttissueshigh-narrownosenormalcephalogramsmodelsimplantationSGless5-mmparamediansectionmidsagittalsuturelateralplasterOMICGsitesstudyCBCTheatmapvaluescanorthodontic27groupdigitaldentalmucosameasuredposteriorlargestTSTvaluepatientusedanalysisaverage12insertionfound2D5 mmMouthprovidemini-implantsOBJECTIVES:aimcomparetotalboneconfirmpracticabilitylimitationmini-implantpatientsMATERIALANDMETHODS:sampleconsistedcontrolUppersuperimposedcorrespondingconebeamcomputedtomographyimagesverticalcurvaturemeasuringthirdrugaanterior2-mmintervalalongoutlinealsorecordedDescriptivestatisticsindependent-samplesttesthierarchicalclusteringstatisticalRESULTS:greatest24 ± 263 mm959 ± 236 mm96 ± 239 mm1056 ± 238 mmrespectivelySignificantdifferencesP < 005clusteredtogetherclustergroupsonelocatedblueareameasurement8CONCLUSIONS:maypalatelittlesuitableTwo-dimensionalrelativelyeffectiveassessmentchoiceCLINICALRELEVANCE:Three-dimensionaldatamodelaccurateinformationMeanwhileassessingconditionsevenEvaluationplacementversuspalates:retrospectiveLateralPalatal

Similar Articles

Cited By