Comparison of the Buccal Cortical Bone Thickness in Growing Thai Patients with Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the buccal cortical bone thickness at the infrazygomatic (IZ) crest site between non-cleft and cleft sides in growing Thai patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP), using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Materials and Methods: Pre orthodontic treatment CBCT images of 40 IZ crest sites obtained from 20 non-syndromic Thai patients with UCLP were measured. Using the DentiPlan professional V. 3.0 (NECTEC, Thailand) viewer program, five cutting lines of 1.2 mm vertical interval from 6.0 mm to 10.8 mm from the buccal cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) of the maxillary first molar to the root apex were created for the measurements. The paired t-test was used to assess the differences in buccal cortical bone thickness between non-cleft and cleft sides.
Results: The buccal cortical bone thickness ranged from 1.08+0.30 mm to 2.16+1.17 mm on the non-cleft side, and from 1.19+0.3 mm to 3.36+2.80 mm on the cleft side. The greatest values were along the distobuccal (DB) root of the maxillary first molar, increasing from the buccal CEJ to the apex. Statistically significant differences in the measurements between the non-cleft and cleft sides were discovered at p<0.05.
Conclusions: All the buccal cortical bone thickness measurements were greater than 1.0 mm on both non-cleft and cleft sides. The values increased from the CEJ level towards the apical area. Moreover, most measurements on the cleft side were significantly greater than those non-cleft side.
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. The Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1996; 33: 51-56.
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.
Sasaki A, Takeshita S, Publico AS, et al. Finite element growth analysis for the craniofacial skeleton in patients with cleft lip and palate. Med Eng Phys 2004; 26: 109-118.
Manosudprasit M, Wangsrimongkol T, Pisek P, Chowchuen B, Somsuk T. Growth modification in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients with face mask. J Med Assoc Thai 2012; 95: 42-48.
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.
Lin JJ-J. Creative orthodontics: Blending the Damon System & TADs to manage difficult malocclusions. 2nd ed. Teipei: Yong Chieh Co; 2010: 149-178.
Liou EJ, Pai BC, Lin JC. Do miniscrews remain stationary under orthodontic forces? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 126: 42-47.
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.
Baumgaertel S, Hans MG. Assessment of infrazygomatic bone depth for mini-screw insertion. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20: 638-642.
Kravitz ND, Kusnoto B, Tsay TP, Hohlt WF. The use of temporary anchorage devices for molar intrusion. J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 138: 56-64.
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.
Fayed MM, Pazera P, Katsaros C. Optimal sites for orthodontic mini-implant placement assessed by cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 2010; 80: 939-951.
Hu KS, Kang MK, Kim TW, Kim KH, Kim HJ. Relationships between dental roots and surrounding tissues for orthodontic miniscrew installation. Angle Orthod 2009; 79: 37-45.
Park J, Cho HJ. Three-dimensional evaluation of interradicular spaces and cortical bone thickness for the placement and initial stability of microimplants in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 311-314.
Deguchi T, Nasu M, Murakami K, Yabuuchi T, Kamioka H, Takano-Yamamoto T. Quantitative evaluation of cortical bone thickness with computed tomographic scanning for orthodontic implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 129: 721e7-721e12.
Khumsarn N, Patanaporn V, Janhom A, Jotikasthira D. Comparison of interradicular distances and cortical bone thickness in Thai patients with Class I and Class II skeletal patterns using cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent 2016; 46: 117-125.
Timock AM, Cook V, McDonald T, et al. Accuracy and reliability of buccal bone height and thickness measurements from cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140: 734-744.
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.
Lohalertkit Chanapa PK, Janhom Apirum, Patanaporn Virush, Jotikasthira Dhirawat. Comparison of infrazygomatic crest thicknesses between Thai patients with Class I and Class II skeletal pattern using cone beam computed tomography. OJ Thai Assoc Orthod 2018; 8: 4-12.
Motoyoshi M, Yoshida T, Ono A, Shimizu N. Effect of cortical bone thickness and implant placement torque on stability of orthodontic mini-implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22: 334-340.
Papageorgiou SN, Zogakis IP, Papadopoulos MA. Failure rates and associated risk factors of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 142: 577-595.
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.
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.
Dalessandri D, Salgarello S, Dalessandri M, et al. Determinants for success rates of temporary anchorage devices in orthodontics: a meta-analysis (n > 50). Eur J Orthod 2014; 36: 303-313.
Marquezan M, Mattos CT, Sant'Anna EF, de Souza MM, Maia LC. Does cortical thickness influence the primary stability of miniscrews?: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Angle Orthod 2014; 84: 1093-1103.
Park HS, Jeong SH, Kwon OW. Factors affecting the clinical success of screw implants used as orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130: 18-25.
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.
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 SK, 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, Mura P, Bednar J. Miniscrew implants: The Spider Screw anchorage system. Semin Orthod 2005; 11: 40-46.
Viwattanatipa N, Thanakitcharu S, Uttraravichien A, Pitiphat W. Survival analyses of surgical miniscrew as orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 29-36.