Azhar F.docx J Bagh College Dentistry Vol. 28(2), June 2016 The measurements of Pedodontics, Orthodontics and Preventive Dentistry 103 The Measurements of Maxillary Alveolar Bone Density at 13- 15 Years Age by Using Spiral Computerized Tomography Azhar A.Farage, B.D.S. (1) Fakhri A. Al Fatlawi, B.D.S., M.Sc. (2) ABSTRACT Background: Bone density is a major factor that affect mini implant primarily stability; no Iraqi studies have evaluated bone density related to mini-implant placement for orthodontic anchorage at age 13 -15 years. The present research aims to evaluate gender, side and site differences in the bone density at various orthodontic implant sites for the maxillary alveolar bone. Materials and methods: Twenty nine individuals (16 males and 13 females) had subjected to clinical examination, then 64-multislice computed tomography scan data were evaluated and bone density was measured in Hounsfield unit at 21 points (9 points for each side and 3 points between the right and left central incisors) . Results: The results obtained showed that there are no significant differences in bone density between males and females and between the left and right sides were found. There was no significant differences in bone density between the maxillary buccal cortical bone and the palatal cortical bone were generally except that at lateral incisor and canine point where the palatal side had higher bone density than buccal side. The mean bone density of the cancellous bone in the anterior part was higher than that in the posterior of the maxilla. Conclusions: When orthodontic, mini implant are indicated, no gender and side difference affect the success rate regarding bone density. Keyword: Bone density, mini-implant, computerized tomography. (J Bagh Coll Dentistry 2016; 28(2):103-107). INTRUDUCTION The orthodontist always constructs an appliance to produce certain desired tooth movements. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Inevitably, reaction forces can move other teeth if the appliance contacts them. Anchorage, then, is resistance to reaction forces that is provided by other teeth. Anchorage control is an important factor directly affecting the results of orthodontic treatment, mainly when maximum anchorage is necessary (1). Although traditional systems to provide tooth movement with enhanced anchorage have been developed, limitations due to the need for patient cooperation, operator skill, and precision in determining the ideal force to perform the movement make the control of posterior anchorage a challenge (2). To overcome problems associated with anchorage loss, skeletal anchorage methods such as dental miniplates and miniscrews. Mini- implants are a valuable alternative to extraoral anchorage, which need cooperative patient (3). Microscrew implants have many benefits, including easy placement and removal, immediate loading, minimal anatomical limitations thanks to their small size, and low cost, as compared with other skeletal options. Many reports have dealt with various clinical situations, such as en-masse retraction of the anterior or posterior teeth, retrac- (1) Master Student. Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad. (2) Professor, Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad. tion of the whole dentition, molar distalization, molar up righting, protraction of molars, and forced eruption of the canines (4,5). Several sites have been proposed for the placement of miniscrews or microscrew implants. Most frequently recommended sites were the midpalatine area; Inter-radicular spaces are generally the site of choice for mini implant placement for their ease of access, simplicity of procedure, and less traumatic placement (6). The alveolar bone between the maxillary second premolars and first molars, and the mandibular first and second molars (7).Three main factors affect the success of dental implants: host, implant, and surgical method. Density of bone is a host factor that is known to play a crucial role in mini implant stability. A close relationship was shown between bone density and the success of dental implants. During early stages, bone density appears to be the key determinant for stationary anchorage of miniimplants in the sites with inadequate cortical bone thickness because primary retention of mini-implants achieved by mechanical means rather than through osseointegration (8). Characteristic of all bones are a dense outer sheet of compact bone and a central cancellous bone. The cancellous bone forms a trabecular network, surrounds marrow spaces that may contain either fatty or hematopoietic tissue, lies subjacent to the cortical bone, and makes up the main portion of a bone. The maxilla has a thin compact bone and fine trabecular bone supporting the teeth (9). Mini implant stability is primarily related to local bone density. TADs are also J Bagh College Dentistry Vol. 28(2), June 2016 The measurements of Pedodontics, Orthodontics and Preventive Dentistry 104 known to be frequently associated with higher failure rates among adolescents when compared with adults, which suggests that age may be a contributing factor. It has been speculated that it may be due to thinner cortical layers coupled with immature bone qualities in adolescents (10). The demonstration of bone density by means of CT scanning directly depends on the quantity of inorganic crystals contained in the bone tissue keeping in mind that bone is not uniform in structure but composed of several layers of different materials. One method for measuring bone density appropriately is CT. CT has expediency and nondestructive nature and its images in DICOM format contain data of bone density so that the software program can measure it. Misch (11) mentioned that the bone density measurements using CT provide more accurate results than radiographic assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS The sample The sample of this study consisted of CT images for patient who were attending Al. Shaheed Ghazi Al-Hariri Hospital/the Computerized Tomography department. Only 29 subjects (16 male and 13 female, age range 13-15 years).Subject Selection criteria included: 1) All subjects are Iraqi in origin. 2) The age ranged between 13-15 years. 3) They have full set of permanent teeth in both jaws “excluding the 3rd molar”. 4) They have bilateral class I molar and canine relationships, with normal over jet ranging between 2-4 mm and normal overbite ranging between 1-2 mm. 5) Clinically skeletal class I was determined by two-finger method. 6) Subjects should have no large metal restorations that cause streak artifacts and affect the density of the adjacent bone tissue. 7) No history of dentofacial deformities and pathologic lesions in the jaws. 8) No history of chronic regular use of medication affects the bone density such as steroids, barbiturates, anticonvulsants, and thyroid hormone replacements. 9) None of the subjects had received previous orthodontic and orthopedic treatment. Materials and equipment 1. Disposable dental mirrors and probes and sliding caliper 2.64-multi-detecter CT scanner (SOMATOM Definition AS, Siemens AG, Germany, Z- UHR(Ultra HighResolution). 3. Seimens work station computer. 4. Syngo VX2009B, image fusion (Siemens AG imaging software multimodality reading, Germany). Method The mean bone density was measured using software (Syngo 2009B) that had already been incorporated into the CT machine. The points were selected using 3D, axial, coronal and sagittal planes. With the "Three Dimensional " mode, the intended points could be seen in three planes of space at the same time to determine the specific location since all the slices in the 3 planes will be changed at the same time and each slice can be matched by the slice serial number to be opened on the"viewing"mode for the maxillary alveolar bone 21 points was measured, 9 points for each side between each two teeth (lateral inciser and canine,second premolar and first molar and between first molar and second molar), and 3 points between the right and left central incisors. For buccal and palatal cortical bone distal to the distal most surface of the tooth of interest was chosen apically 5 to 7 mm from the alveolar crest, the density of the cancellous bone was measured at the trabeculae, located halfway buccopalataly between the buccal and palatal cortical plates of each tooth. RESULTS Bone density assessed and the results were expressed by descriptive statistics including the mean and standard deviation of the mean. According to t-test, there was no significant difference in the maxillary alveolar bone density between the right and left sides in different areas in male (table1) and female group (table 2).Then matching measurements of the right and left sides combined for further analysis. J Bagh College Dentistry Vol. 28(2), June 2016 The measurements of Pedodontics, Orthodontics and Preventive Dentistry 105 Table 1: Comparison of the bone density between the right and left sides in different areas in male group (N=16) Areas Sides Right Left Comparison Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t-test p-value 7-6 Buccal 989.27 131.18 1046.40 182.48 -2.085 0.056 Cancellous 482.60 63.96 494.60 97.27 -0.473 0.644 Palatal 1018.73 136.75 1022.67 129.28 -0.114 0.911 6-5 Buccal 1026.00 106.96 1006.40 169.92 0.583 0.569 Cancellous 532.33 91.09 484.60 145.44 1.342 0.201 Palatal 1007.07 137.34 1030.07 166.46 -0.773 0.452 3-2 Buccal 983.13 152.63 1002.07 180.36 -0.572 0.576 Cancellous 616.07 140.50 556.80 188.52 1.271 0.225 Palatal 1030.53 120.29 1055.67 159.58 -0.735 0.474 Table 2: Comparison of the bone density between the right and left sides in different areas in female group (N=13) Areas Sides Right Left Comparison Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t-test p-value 7-6 Buccal 1019.27 91.44 1003.13 126.18 0.505 0.621 Cancellous 478.87 49.37 470.40 52.98 0.428 0.675 Palatal 1014.87 63.57 1044.60 121.60 -1.315 0.210 6-5 Buccal 1008.87 105.21 1047.93 106.30 -1.875 0.082 Cancellous 500.60 108.77 487.80 79.46 0.736 0.474 Palatal 1029.13 89.31 1063.73 133.23 -0.874 0.397 3-2 Buccal 1016.53 105.20 1005.80 131.50 0.370 0.717 Cancellous 524.00 144.19 521.13 106.55 0.073 0.943 Palatal 1063.93 83.26 1030.27 139.79 1.031 0.320 Descriptive statistics of the bone density for the male, the alveolar the buccal cortical bone density ranged approximately from (992±164 HU) at lateral incisor\canine point to (1021±119 HU) at the central incisor\ central incisor point. For, alveolar palatal cortical bone density ranged approximately from (997± 145HU) at central incisor\ central incisor point to (1043±139 HU) at lateral incisor \ canine point. Thedensity of the alveolar cancellous bone of the maxilla ranged approximately from (488±81 HU) at the first molar / second molar point to (638±136 HU) at the central incisor/central incisors point (table 1). Descriptive statistics of the bone density for the female, the alveolar buccal cortical bone density ranged approximately from (1002±140HU) at central incisor\ central incisor point to (1028±105 HU) at the second premolar/ first molar point. For, alveolar palatal cortical bone density ranged approximately from (1025±117HU) at central incisor\ central incisor point to (1047±114 HU) at lateral incisor \ canine point The density of the alveolar cancellous bone of the maxilla ranged approximately from (474±50 HU) at the first molar / second molar point to (570±140 HU) at the central incisor/central incisors point.(table 2). According to t-test, there was no significant difference in the maxillary alveolar cortical and cancellous bone density between males and females in most points (Table 3). Descriptive statistics of the bone density for total sample after combined male and female, the alveolar buccal cortical bone density ranged approximately from (1001±141HU) at lateral incisor\canine point to (1022±123 HU) at the second premolar/ first molar point. For, alveolar palatal cortical bone density ranged approximately from (1011±117HU) at central incisor\ central incisor point to (1045±126 HU) at lateral incisor \ canine point. The density of the alveolar cancellous bone of the maxilla ranged approximately from (481±67 HU) at the first molar / second molar point to (604±141 HU) at the central incisor/central incisors point (table 5). J Bagh College Dentistry Vol. 28(2), June 2016 The measurements of Pedodontics, Orthodontics and Preventive Dentistry 106 Table 3: Descriptive statistics and genders difference of the bone density in different areas (N=29) Area Side Descriptive Statistics Genders difference Males Females Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t-test p-value 7-6 Buccal 1017.83 158.83 1011.20 108.58 0.189 0.851 Cancellous 488.60 81.11 474.63 50.50 0.801 0.427 Palatal 1020.70 130.77 1029.73 96.53 -0.304 0.762 6-5 Buccal 1016.20 139.86 1028.40 105.80 -0.381 0.705 Cancellous 508.47 121.68 494.20 93.82 0.509 0.613 Palatal 1018.57 150.40 1046.43 112.82 -0.812 0.420 3-2 Buccal 992.60 164.45 1011.17 117.13 -0.504 0.616 Cancellous 586.43 166.12 522.57 124.58 1.685 0.097 Palatal 1043.10 139.43 1047.10 114.34 -0.122 0.904 1-1 Buccal 1021.93 119.29 1002.73 140.64 0.403 0.690 Cancellous 638.13 136.99 570.87 142.69 1.317 0.198 Palatal 997.13 145.65 1025.00 83.30 -0.643 0.525 Table 4: Comparison of the bone density between the right and left sides in different areas for total sample (N=29) Areas Sides Right Left Comparison Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t-test p-value 7-6 Buccal 1004.27 112.14 1024.77 155.71 -0.942 0.354 Cancellous 480.73 56.17 482.50 77.93 -0.111 0.921 Palatal 1016.80 104.80 1033.63 123.82 -0.823 0.417 6-5 Buccal 1017.43 104.61 1027.17 140.85 -0.482 0.633 Cancellous 516.47 99.89 486.20 115.16 1.534 0.136 Palatal 1018.10 114.38 1046.90 149.13 -1.183 0.247 3-2 Buccal 999.83 129.91 1003.93 155.10 -0.188 0.852 Cancellous 570.03 147.51 538.97 151.55 1.020 0.316 Palatal 1047.23 103.05 1042.97 147.97 0.179 0.859 Table 5: Descriptive statistics of the bone density in different areas for total sample(N=29) Area Side Mean S.D. 6-7 Buccal 1014.52 134.93 Cancellous 481.62 67.05 Palatal 1025.22 114.05 5-6 Buccal 1022.30 123.10 Cancellous 501.33 107.52 Palatal 1032.50 132.56 2-3 Buccal 1001.88 141.86 Cancellous 554.50 149.53 Palatal 1045.10 126.44 1-1 Buccal 1021.93 128.50 Cancellous 604.50 141.63 Palatal 1011.07 117.43 DISCUSSION In the present study, the inter-radicular spaces were the areas of interest since they are generally the site of choice for mini implant placement for their ease of access, simplicity of procedure, and less traumatic placement (6,12). The results of the present study indicate that there were no significant differences between both sides for all measured variables for both genders. Human studies showed no difference in bone densities between left and right sides (3,8,13,14-17). This investigation found no significant gender differences in buccal and palatal cortical bone density which is in accordance with others (3,8,13,16 17). This non-significant gender difference can be reflected clinically by previous studies that found no differences in the success rate and stability of mini implants between male and female subjects (18,19). The lack of gender differences in this study can be explained by the presence of estrogen J Bagh College Dentistry Vol. 28(2), June 2016 The measurements of Pedodontics, Orthodontics and Preventive Dentistry 107 hormone in higher levels in the female subjects compared to the male subjects, which is compensated by the exercises exerted by the males and the different chewing patterns. On the other hand, other studies reported significant differences in mean bone densities between males and females human subjects (age range 12-50) (20), which are inconsistent with the present study. This inconsistency may be related to subject age differences between two studies, as age range in the present study was 13-15 years. However other studies (10,14,20) showed that adult females had significantly greater palatal cortical bone density than adult males did, this is in conflict with the finding of the present study suggesting that the presence of gender difference may be depend on the different specific sites being examined in the palate or due to ethnic variation or the CT scanning machine setting being used. Clinicians should remember that the reported data are only guides, each patient is unique, and the density variability among patients is high. In high-risk cases, such as patients with systemic or severe craniofacial problems, each site should be evaluated before mini-implant placement. It remains to be aware of the risk of computed tomography, which continues to impart a higher radiation dosage compared to conventional radiographs, but to weigh this against the power of the diagnostic information that it can provide. REFERENCES 1. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM, Ackerman JL. Contemporary orthodontics. 5th ed. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2013. 2. Park HS, Kwon TG. Sliding mechanics with microscrew implant anchorage. Angle Orthod 2004; 74(5): 703-10. 3. Park HS, Lee YJ, Jeong SH, Kwon TG. Density of the alveolar and basal bones of the maxilla and the mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133(1): 30-7. 4. Park HS.The use of micro-implant as orthodontic anchorage. Seoul, Korea: Nare; 2001. 5. Park HS, Bae SM,Kyung HM, Sung JH.Micro-implant anchorage for treatment of skeletal ClassI bialveolar protrusion. J Clin Orthod 2001; 35: 417-22. 6. Chaimanee P, Suzuki B, Suzuki EY. ‘‘Safe Zones’’ for miniscrew implant placement in different dent skeletal patterns. Angle Orthod 2011; 81(3): 397-403. 7. Nanda R, Uribe FA. Temporary anchorage devices in orthodontics.St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2009. 8. Chun YS, Lim WH. Bone density at interradicular sites: implications for orthodontic mini-implant placement. OrthodCraniofac Res 2009; 12 (1): 25-32. 9. Nanci A. Ten Cate’s Oral Histology; development, structure, and function. 7thed. Mosby Elsevier, 2008. 10. Han S, Bayome M, Lee J, Lee YJ, Song HH, Kook YA. Evaluation of palatal bone density in adults and adolescents for application of skeletal anchorage devices. Angle Orthod 2012; 82(4): 625-31. 11. Misch CE. Density of bone: effect on surgical approach, and healing. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. St. Louis: Mosby 1993; 469-87. 12. Yamada K, Kuroda S, Deguchi T, Yamamoto TT, Yamashiro T. Distal movement of maxillary molars using miniscrew anchorage in the buccal interradicular region. Angle Orthod 2009; 79(1): 78-84. 13. Choi JH, Park CH, Yi SW, Lim HJ, Hwang HS. Bone density measurement in interdental areas with simulated placement of orthodontic miniscrew implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136 (6): 766.e1-12. 14. Borges MS, Mocha JN .Bone density assessment for mini-implants position. Dental Press J Orthod 2010; 15(6): 58.e1-9. 15. Tewfiq S M. Bone density determination for the maxilla and the mandible in different age groups by using computerized tomography. A master thesis, College of Dentistry. University of Baghdad, Iraq. 2012. 16. Ozdemir F, Tozlu M, Germec-Cakan D.Quantitative evaluation of alveolar cortical bone density in adults with different vertical facial types using cone-beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod 2014; 44(1): 36-43. 17. Chugh T, Ganeshkar SV, Ameet V, Abhay K. Quantitative assessment of interradicular bone density in the maxilla and mandible: implications in clinical orthodontics. ProgOrthod2013; 14: 38. 18. Cheng SJ, Tseng IY, Lee JJ, Kok SH. A prospective study of the risk factors associated with failure of mini-implants used for orthodontic anchorage. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19(1): 100-6. 19. Lim HJ, Eun CS, Cho JH, Lee KH, Hwang HS. Factors associated with initial stability of miniscrews for orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136(2): 236-42. 20. Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Pacifici A, Pacifici L, Barbato E. How Accurate Is CBCT in Measuring Bone Density? A Comparative CBCT-CT in Vitro Study. Clin Implant Dent Relate Res 2014; 16: 471-8. 21. Moon CH, Park HK, Nam JS, Im JS, Baek SH. Relationship between vertical skeletal pattern and success rate of orthodontic mini-implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138(1): 51-7.