IADR Abstract Archives
Evaluation of the Necessity of CBCT During Placement of TADs
Objectives: While TADs are a widely accepted source of clinical anchorage in orthodontics, their major disadvantage involves unwanted side effects related to neighboring root damage. In order to avoid this, the use of CBCT has been recommended in recent years. Thus, we analyzed the difference in root proximity of TADs placed with and without the use of CBCT prior to miniscrew placement. In addition, we decided to ask first year orthodontic residents to participate as the operators in this study, as it may prove that CBCT is recommended for non-experienced doctors when placing TADs.
Methods: 24 AbsoAnchor TADs were placed between mandibular molars and were randomly categorized into two groups: Group A with CBCT information available to the operator, and Group B with no CBCT information available. TADs were placed interproximally and a post-operative CBCT was taken to evaluate root proximity. ImageJ digital measurements were collected, Periotest stability testing was performed, and ANOVA statistical analysis was executed (p < 0.05).
Results: Average root proximity was 1.3 ± 0.10 mm, 0.3 ± 0.08 mm, in Groups A and B, respectively. There was a statistical significance between group A and B. Approximately 30% in group B had TADs penetrating the root compared to 5% in group A that showed penetration to the roots. The average Periotest value was 4.7 ± 5.3, 6.2 ± 7.1, in groups A and B, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between groups A and B. A lower unit value (more stable) on the Periotest was observed in group A.
Conclusions: The use of CBCT imaging before the placement of TADs is strongly recommended in order to avoid root proximity and unstable TADs. The use of CBCT may be useful tool for training of non-experienced doctors in placing TADs.
Methods: 24 AbsoAnchor TADs were placed between mandibular molars and were randomly categorized into two groups: Group A with CBCT information available to the operator, and Group B with no CBCT information available. TADs were placed interproximally and a post-operative CBCT was taken to evaluate root proximity. ImageJ digital measurements were collected, Periotest stability testing was performed, and ANOVA statistical analysis was executed (p < 0.05).
Results: Average root proximity was 1.3 ± 0.10 mm, 0.3 ± 0.08 mm, in Groups A and B, respectively. There was a statistical significance between group A and B. Approximately 30% in group B had TADs penetrating the root compared to 5% in group A that showed penetration to the roots. The average Periotest value was 4.7 ± 5.3, 6.2 ± 7.1, in groups A and B, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between groups A and B. A lower unit value (more stable) on the Periotest was observed in group A.
Conclusions: The use of CBCT imaging before the placement of TADs is strongly recommended in order to avoid root proximity and unstable TADs. The use of CBCT may be useful tool for training of non-experienced doctors in placing TADs.
