Page 22 - COS-FOD2015

Al-Jaf

Hence avoiding this proximity by knowledge of Conclusions
probable area interradicular distance can in- The recommended site for miniscrew place-
crease miniscrews success rate. ment in the maxilla is between second premolar

Our results confirmed that in the maxilla, the and first molar. Although a more apical position
preferred site for mini-implant placement is be- gives more root distance, it is not recommend-
tween the maxillary second premolars and first ed to insert miniscrews higher than 8 mm
molars because of the large space and easy above C.EJ. to avoid soft tissue inflammation
and also to avoid sinus perforation. In the man-
accessibility for various orthodontic mechanics.
dible, the recommended site is between first
17]. Authors have studied interradicular dis-
and second molar at 8 mm below C.E J.
tance at various depths from C.E.J [3, 11, 17,

18] in this study we only assessed interradicular

distance in the attached gingiva as this place-
Acknowledgment
ment choice was recommended by previous
This research was supported by ERGS grant,
studies to avoid soft tissue inflammation and
5/3(37/2013)
sinus perforation in the maxilla [2, 10, 12].

Our results showed that for the mandible the
References
site between the two molars offers a wider root
distance for miniscrew placement. This finding 1. Hu, K.-S., et al., Relationships between
agrees with previous studies [11, 19, 20]. In Dental Roots and Surrounding Tissues
Both arches root distance increase apically but for Orthodontic Miniscrew Installation.
this increase is not of statistical significance. The Angle Orthodontist, 2009. 79(1): p.
37-45.
Miyawaki et. al [21] studied stability after im-
2. Poggio, P.M., et al., “Safe Zones”: A
plantation, and suggested that miniscrews
Guide for Miniscrew Positioning in the
move after placement, so one should allow at
Maxillary and Mandibular Arch. The An-
least 1 mm of distance between the root sur-
gle Orthodontist, 2006. 76(2): p. 191-
face and the mini-screw.
197.
Although our results show generally a higher
3. Yang, L., et al., Quantitative evaluation of
male mean values for interradicular distance,
maxillary interradicular bone with cone-
gender differences in the mandible was not sig-
beam computed tomography for bicorti-
nificant, while in the maxilla at 8 mm cut level a
cal placement of orthodontic mini-
significant difference is seen in interradicular
implants. American Journal of Ortho-
distance at two sites, between second premolar
dontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics,
and first molar and between first and second
2015. 147(6): p. 725-737.
molar.
4. Laursen, M.G., B. Melsen, and P.M. Cat-

taneo, An evaluation of insertion sites for

mini-implants. The Angle Orthodontist,
2013. 83(2): p. 222-229.

5. Kuroda, S. and E. Tanaka, Risks and

18