CBCT Assessment of Palatal Safe Zones in Adults with Various Skeletal Patterns

利用锥形束CT评估不同骨骼模式成年人的腭部安全区

阅读:3

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: To investigate the differences in palatal bone thickness among adult patients with different sagittal skeletal patterns using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), and to analyse the safe regions for palatal anchor screw implantation in these patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study. We retrospectively selected preoperative CBCT data from 90 adult patients (age: 26.5 ± 5.8 years) with Angle Class malocclusion treated between 2023 and 2025, divided into skeletal Class I, II, and III groups (30 cases each, 1:1 male-to-female ratio). Bone thickness at 27 points on the left palatal midline was measured using Dolphin software, with 1-way ANOVA and LSD for analysis (α = 0.05). RESULTS: For all skeletal classes, midpalatal bone thickness increased anterior-to-posterior (Class I: η² = 0.42; Class II: η² = 0.40; Class III: η² = 0.35, all P < .05), while lateral/paramedian regions showed the opposite (η² = 0.68-0.82, P<.05). Safe zones (≥6mm) for Class I/II included midpalatal middle/posterior, lateral, and paramedian anterior regions; Class III only had midpalatal posterior (7.59 ± 1.36mm). CONCLUSION: Palatal safe zones vary by sagittal skeletal pattern, providing critical references for anchor screw placement. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our findings provide evidence-based safe zone maps to guide palatal anchor screw placement, so as to mitigate complications during orthodontic treatment. They also highlight the need to integrate AI-guided planning tools for enhanced accuracy, to inform good clinical practice.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。