Evaluation of bone thickness in the anterior hard palate relative to midsagittal orthodontic implants

Brent Henriksen, Bruce Bavitz, Brad Kelly, Stanton D. Harn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

42 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The Straumann Orthosystem (Institut Straumann, Waldenburg, Switzerland) describes a technique that involves placement of titanium implants (4 or 6 mm long and 3.3 mm in diameter) into the midsagittal hard palate for orthodontic anchorage. The aim of this study was to determine the quantity of bone in the midline of the anterior hard palate, and specifically the thickness inferior to the incisive canal. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five dry skulls were radiographed with a standardized cephalometric technique. The vertical thickness of the midsagittal palate was then measured to the nearest tenth of a millimeter. Next, gutta-percha was injected into the incisive canal, and the radiograph was repeated. The bone thicknesses were then measured from the inferior hard palate to the most inferior part of the radiopaque canal. This is defined as the actual bone available for the implant without violating the canal. Results: The measurements have shown that an average of 8.6 ± 1.3 mm of bone is theoretically available for the implant. However, considering the canal (where only bone thickness inferior to it is utilized and measured), only 4.3 ± 1.6 mm of bone exists. The canal itself averaged 2.5 ± 0.6 mm in diameter. Discussion: Prior studies have overestimated the amount of bone available for implants in the median hard palate. The main reason for this is that the incisive canal is not well visualized on cephalometric radiographs of live patients. Conclusion: This study supports the continued use of implants, as approximately 50% of skulls still had the requisite minimum 4 mm of bone inferior to the incisive canal for maximum osseointegration with the 4-mm implants. However, 6-mm implants should be used with caution.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)578-581
Number of pages4
JournalInternational Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants
Volume18
Issue number4
StatePublished - Oct 3 2003

Fingerprint

Hard Palate
Orthodontics
Bone and Bones
Cephalometry
Skull
Gutta-Percha
Osseointegration
Palate
Titanium
Switzerland

Keywords

  • Dental implants
  • Hard palate
  • Orthodontics
  • Osseointegration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

Evaluation of bone thickness in the anterior hard palate relative to midsagittal orthodontic implants. / Henriksen, Brent; Bavitz, Bruce; Kelly, Brad; Harn, Stanton D.

In: International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, Vol. 18, No. 4, 03.10.2003, p. 578-581.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7a62eb1431a547ddaba73e0ce32b5b59,
title = "Evaluation of bone thickness in the anterior hard palate relative to midsagittal orthodontic implants",
abstract = "Purpose: The Straumann Orthosystem (Institut Straumann, Waldenburg, Switzerland) describes a technique that involves placement of titanium implants (4 or 6 mm long and 3.3 mm in diameter) into the midsagittal hard palate for orthodontic anchorage. The aim of this study was to determine the quantity of bone in the midline of the anterior hard palate, and specifically the thickness inferior to the incisive canal. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five dry skulls were radiographed with a standardized cephalometric technique. The vertical thickness of the midsagittal palate was then measured to the nearest tenth of a millimeter. Next, gutta-percha was injected into the incisive canal, and the radiograph was repeated. The bone thicknesses were then measured from the inferior hard palate to the most inferior part of the radiopaque canal. This is defined as the actual bone available for the implant without violating the canal. Results: The measurements have shown that an average of 8.6 ± 1.3 mm of bone is theoretically available for the implant. However, considering the canal (where only bone thickness inferior to it is utilized and measured), only 4.3 ± 1.6 mm of bone exists. The canal itself averaged 2.5 ± 0.6 mm in diameter. Discussion: Prior studies have overestimated the amount of bone available for implants in the median hard palate. The main reason for this is that the incisive canal is not well visualized on cephalometric radiographs of live patients. Conclusion: This study supports the continued use of implants, as approximately 50{\%} of skulls still had the requisite minimum 4 mm of bone inferior to the incisive canal for maximum osseointegration with the 4-mm implants. However, 6-mm implants should be used with caution.",
keywords = "Dental implants, Hard palate, Orthodontics, Osseointegration",
author = "Brent Henriksen and Bruce Bavitz and Brad Kelly and Harn, {Stanton D.}",
year = "2003",
month = "10",
day = "3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "578--581",
journal = "International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants",
issn = "0882-2786",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of bone thickness in the anterior hard palate relative to midsagittal orthodontic implants

AU - Henriksen, Brent

AU - Bavitz, Bruce

AU - Kelly, Brad

AU - Harn, Stanton D.

PY - 2003/10/3

Y1 - 2003/10/3

N2 - Purpose: The Straumann Orthosystem (Institut Straumann, Waldenburg, Switzerland) describes a technique that involves placement of titanium implants (4 or 6 mm long and 3.3 mm in diameter) into the midsagittal hard palate for orthodontic anchorage. The aim of this study was to determine the quantity of bone in the midline of the anterior hard palate, and specifically the thickness inferior to the incisive canal. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five dry skulls were radiographed with a standardized cephalometric technique. The vertical thickness of the midsagittal palate was then measured to the nearest tenth of a millimeter. Next, gutta-percha was injected into the incisive canal, and the radiograph was repeated. The bone thicknesses were then measured from the inferior hard palate to the most inferior part of the radiopaque canal. This is defined as the actual bone available for the implant without violating the canal. Results: The measurements have shown that an average of 8.6 ± 1.3 mm of bone is theoretically available for the implant. However, considering the canal (where only bone thickness inferior to it is utilized and measured), only 4.3 ± 1.6 mm of bone exists. The canal itself averaged 2.5 ± 0.6 mm in diameter. Discussion: Prior studies have overestimated the amount of bone available for implants in the median hard palate. The main reason for this is that the incisive canal is not well visualized on cephalometric radiographs of live patients. Conclusion: This study supports the continued use of implants, as approximately 50% of skulls still had the requisite minimum 4 mm of bone inferior to the incisive canal for maximum osseointegration with the 4-mm implants. However, 6-mm implants should be used with caution.

AB - Purpose: The Straumann Orthosystem (Institut Straumann, Waldenburg, Switzerland) describes a technique that involves placement of titanium implants (4 or 6 mm long and 3.3 mm in diameter) into the midsagittal hard palate for orthodontic anchorage. The aim of this study was to determine the quantity of bone in the midline of the anterior hard palate, and specifically the thickness inferior to the incisive canal. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five dry skulls were radiographed with a standardized cephalometric technique. The vertical thickness of the midsagittal palate was then measured to the nearest tenth of a millimeter. Next, gutta-percha was injected into the incisive canal, and the radiograph was repeated. The bone thicknesses were then measured from the inferior hard palate to the most inferior part of the radiopaque canal. This is defined as the actual bone available for the implant without violating the canal. Results: The measurements have shown that an average of 8.6 ± 1.3 mm of bone is theoretically available for the implant. However, considering the canal (where only bone thickness inferior to it is utilized and measured), only 4.3 ± 1.6 mm of bone exists. The canal itself averaged 2.5 ± 0.6 mm in diameter. Discussion: Prior studies have overestimated the amount of bone available for implants in the median hard palate. The main reason for this is that the incisive canal is not well visualized on cephalometric radiographs of live patients. Conclusion: This study supports the continued use of implants, as approximately 50% of skulls still had the requisite minimum 4 mm of bone inferior to the incisive canal for maximum osseointegration with the 4-mm implants. However, 6-mm implants should be used with caution.

KW - Dental implants

KW - Hard palate

KW - Orthodontics

KW - Osseointegration

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0141831225&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0141831225&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 12939012

AN - SCOPUS:0141831225

VL - 18

SP - 578

EP - 581

JO - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

JF - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

SN - 0882-2786

IS - 4

ER -