Published in:
01-12-2021 | Computed Tomography | Research article
Palatal bone thickness at the implantation area of maxillary skeletal expander in adult patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion: a cone-beam computed tomography study
Published in: BMC Oral Health | Issue 1/2021
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
Maxillary skeletal expanders (MSE) is effective for the treatment of maxillary transverse deformity. The purpose of the study was to analyse the palatal bone thickness in the of MSE implantation in patients with skeletal class III malocclusion.
Methods
A total of 80 adult patients (40 males, 40 females) with an average angle before treatment were divided into two groups, the skeletal class III malocclusion group and the skeletal I malocclusion group, based on sagittal facial type. Each group consisted of 40 patients, with a male to female ratio of 1:1. A cone-beam computed tomography scanner was employed to obtain DICOM data for all patients. The palatal bone thickness was measured at 45 sites with MIMICS 21.0 software, and SPSS 22.0 software was employed for statistical analysis. The bone thickness at different regions of the palate in the same group was analysed with one-way repeated measures ANOVA. Fisher’s least significant difference-t method was used for the comparison of pairs, and independent sample t test was employed to determine the significance of differences in the bone thickness at the same sites between the two groups.
Results
Palatal bone thickness was greater in the middle region of the midline area (P < 0.01), while the thickness in the middle and lateral areas in both groups was generally lower (P < 0.001). The bone in the anterior, middle, and posterior regions of the two groups became increasingly thin from the middle area toward the parapalatine region. The palatal bone was significantly thinner in the area 9.0 mm before the transverse palatine suture in the midline area, 9.0 mm before and after the transverse palatine suture in the middle area, and 9.0 mm after the transverse palatine suture in the lateral area.
Conclusion
The palatal bone was thinner in patients with class III malocclusion than in patients with class I malocclusion, with significant differences in some areas. The differences in bone thickness should be considered when MSE miniscrews are implanted. The anterior and middle palatal areas are safer for the implantation of miniscrews, while the thinness of the posterior palatal bone increases the risk of the miniscrews falling off and perforating.