Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Mar 1;94(2):168-179.
doi: 10.2319/081823-566.1.

Recovery bone formation on radiographic palatal bone dehiscences after incisor retraction with microimplants

Recovery bone formation on radiographic palatal bone dehiscences after incisor retraction with microimplants

Ho-Jin Kim et al. Angle Orthod. .

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the difference in labial and palatal alveolar bone thickness and height during the retention period after incisor retraction treatment with microimplant.

Materials and methods: A sample of 21 patients (mean age: 17.80 ± 4.38 years) who underwent incisor retraction treatment using microimplants after premolar extraction was investigated. The cone-beam computed tomography images at pretreatment, posttreatment, and retention were used to measure anterior alveolar bone thickness (labial, palatal, and total; at three vertical levels) and height (labial and palatal) and differences in the incisor position during treatment or retention. Repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction was performed to compare the variables at T0, T1, and T2.

Results: The maxillary central incisor moved posteriorly by approximately 8.0 mm along with intrusive movement of 1.8 mm after treatment. The alveolar bone thickness significantly decreased on the palatal side and increased on the labial side after treatment. Thereafter, the palatal bone thickness significantly increased and labial bone thickness decreased during the retention period. The palatal interdental bone depressed by incisor retraction showed substantial bone deposition after retention.

Conclusions: Radiographic palatal bone dehiscences on the incisor root and palatal bone depression between the incisor roots were apparent after treatment. This palatal bone loss around the incisor roots noticeably recovered with newly formed bone during retention.

Keywords: Alveolar bone remodeling; Incisor retraction; Microimplant; Radiographic palatal bone dehiscence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Reference planes and measurements in cone-beam computed tomography image. (A) Midsagittal and horizontal reference planes of the maxilla. (B) Sagittal section. Vertical levels of the axial section based on the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) of the right maxillary central incisor at posttreatment. (C) Axial section. Alveolar bone thickness (along the anteroposterior line of the tooth) and interdental bone depression (distance between the labial/palatal interdental line and the most depressed point of the interdental bone). (D) Vertical bone level (distance from the alveolar bone crest to the CEJ). (E) Difference in the incisal tip position and tooth inclination on the sagittal sections between time points. (F) Difference in the tooth position on the axial sections between time points (at the labial or palatal root surface). ANS indicates anterior nasal spine; N, nasion; PNS, posterior nasal spine; T1, posttreatment.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Alveolar bone assessment by cephalometric images. (A) Determination of palatal bone dehiscence of the central incisor at each vertical level (Lv). (B) Palatal vertical bone level of the incisor. CEJ indicates cementoenamel junction. Lv indicates level.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Alveolar bone thickness (significant difference between time points; * P < .05, *** P < .01, *** P < .001). T0 indicates pretreatment; T1, posttreatment; T2, retention.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Interdental bone depression (significant difference between time points; * P < .05, ** P < .01, *** P < .001). T0 indicates pretreatment; T1, posttreatment; T2, retention.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Summary illustration of the difference in alveolar bone thickness, interdental bone depression, and tooth position. (A) Sagittal section. Alveolar bone thickness of the right maxillary central incisor. (B) Axial section. Interdental bone depression at level 1. Lv indicates level; T0, pretreatment; T1, posttreatment; T2, retention.
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Sagittal section views of three samples showing significant palatal bone apposition at retention. T1 indicates posttreatment; T2, retention.
Figure 7.
Figure 7.
Palatal alveolar bone images of a sample (at retention). (A) Cephalometric image. (B) Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image (grayscale mode). Landmarks of the interdental palatal bone depression. (C) CBCT image (bone mode). Landmarks of the interdental palatal bone depression. (D) Axial sections of CBCT image. Landmarks of the interdental palatal bone depression. Lv indicates level.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Nguyen T, Proffit WR. The decision-making process in orthodontics. In: Graber LW, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL, Huang GJ. eds. Orthodontics: Current Principles and Techniques 6th ed. St. Louis, Mo: Elsevier; 2017. 208–244
    1. Bae SM, Kim HJ, Kyung HM. Long-term changes of the anterior palatal alveolar bone after treatment with bialveolar protrusion, evaluated with computed tomography Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018. 153 (1) 108–117 - PubMed
    1. Yanagita T, Kuroda S, Takano-Yamamoto T, Yamashiro T. Class III malocclusion with complex problems of lateral open bite and severe crowding successfully treated with miniscrew anchorage and lingual orthodontic brackets Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011. 139 (5) 679–689 - PubMed
    1. Kim HJ, Jang WS, Park HS. Anatomical limits for distalization of lower posterior molars with micro-implant anchorage J Clin Orthod 2019. 53 (5) 305–313 - PubMed
    1. Ahn HW, Moon SC, Baek SH. Morphometric evaluation of changes in the alveolar bone and roots of the maxillary anterior teeth before and after en masse retraction using cone-beam computed tomography Angle Orthod 2013. 83 (2) 212–221 - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources