4.6 Article

The Cone Beam Computed Tomography Evaluation of Cortical Bone Plate after Piezocision-Assisted Orthodontic Upper Arch Expansion: A Case Series

Journal

MATERIALS
Volume 14, Issue 22, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma14226967

Keywords

cone beam computed tomography; oral surgery

Funding

  1. Private Practice, Bialystok, Poland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that piezocision-assisted orthodontic maxillary arch expansion does not cause significant changes in cortical plates, except for the premolar region. This suggests that premolars may be at greater risk of buccal plate loss than other teeth.
Background: The purpose of the study was to evaluate cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) after piezocision-assisted orthodontic maxillary arch expansion. Methods: Forty CBCT images of 20 patients taken before and after treatment were included in the study. The following radiographic parameters were measured: buccal/palatal bone plate thickness measured in three locations, 0.5 mm, 3.5 mm, and 5 mm from the margin of alveolar process; cemento-enamel junction-crest distance (CEJ-C) measured at buccal (CEJ-B) and palatal/lingual (CEJ-P) aspects. Results: After treatment there were insignificant changes in CEJ-C and thickness of buccal/palatal plates for all the dental groups except for incisors and premolars. CEJ-B increased by 1.43 mm on premolars and CEJ-P by 1.65 mm on incisors and by 0.31 mm on premolars. On the incisors, the buccal plate width increased significantly, by 0.2 mm and 0.44 mm at 3.5-mm and 5-mm measurement points. On premolars, the buccal plate width decreased in three measuring points by 0.27 mm, 0.37 mm, and 0.25 mm. Conclusions: Piezocision-assisted orthodontic maxillary arch expansion does not cause evident negative changes of cortical plates except for the premolar region. Therefore, premolars may be at greater risk of buccal plate loss than other teeth.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available