A CBCT Study Comparing the Outcomes of Volumetric Bone Mass and Mini-Implant Success with Different Types of Malocclusions


  • Shene M. Fatah Orthodontics Department, College of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani, Kurdistan Region, Iraq. Author
  • Trefa M. Mahmood Orthodontics Department, College of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani, Kurdistan Region, Iraq. Author




Cortical bone, skeletal malocclusions, CBCT, Mini-implants, Volumetric bone mass, Bone density


Objective: The present study aimed to determine the favorable site for orthodontic mini-implant insertion in both the maxilla and
mandible in terms of cortical and trabecular bone thickness and density in different types of skeletal malocclusion using cone-beam
computed tomography (CBCT).

Methods: In this study, seventy-five CBCT examinations that were requested for different purposes were used, twenty-five in each
malocclusion group (class I, class II and class III), class I (ANB: 2°-4°), class II (ANB > 4°), and class III (ANB < 2°) groups. RadiAnt
Dicom Viewer was utilized, measurements were done at different sites in the jaws using standardized orientations, and the three
malocclusion groups were compared for cortical bone thickness and density as well as the density of trabecular bone, using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney test for non-parametric data and one-way ANOVA for parametric data.

Results: The highest cortical bone thickness was between 1st and 2nd molars at a 6 mm distance from the alveolar crest ranging from
1.03 mm to 1.2 mm in maxilla and 2.13 mm to 2.26 mm in the mandible. The difference between groups was only noticed between
canine and 1st premolar which showed less buccal cortical bone thickness in class II cases with 1.07 mm. Cortical bone density was
not significantly different between the three groups with maximum density between canine and 1st premolar with a density of 997.9 to
1078 HU in the maxilla and the mandible 1245.4 to 1329.3 HU. The trabecular bone density was also highest between canine and 1st
premolar of both jaws, in maxilla 422.13 to 564.15 HU and mandible 509.81 to 799.04 HU. The difference between the groups was
only in the anterior location between canine and 1st premolars which was less in class III cases with 509.81 HU.

Conclusions: Skeletal relations can have an impact on the thickness of the cortical bone, although all skeletal classes have the same
pattern in the maxilla, in the mandible between the canine and the 1st premolar, variations in bone thickness and trabecular density
may be seen in various skeletal malocclusions. So, it is important to properly consider the placement of mini-implants with the skeletal
relation to achieve the maximum primary stability. Further researches are recommended, with long term follow up, on stability of mini-implants and its correlation with bone thickness and density.


Kanomi R. Mini-implant for orthodontic

anchorage. J Clin Orthod. 1997;31(2):763-7.

Baumgaertel S, Razavi MR, Hans MG. Miniimplant anchorage for the orthodontic practitioner.

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.


Papageorgiou SN, Zogakis IP, Papadopoulos MA.

Failure rates and associated risk factors of

orthodontic miniscrew implants: a meta-analysis.

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.


Muddugangadhar B, Amarnath G, Sonika R,

Chheda PS, Garg A. Meta-analysis of failure and

survival rate of implant-supported single crowns,

fixed partial denture, and implant tooth-supported

prostheses. J Int Oral Health. 2015;7(9):11.

Motoyoshi M, Inaba M, Ono A, Ueno S, Shimizu

N. The effect of cortical bone thickness on the

stability of orthodontic mini-implants and on the

stress distribution in surrounding bone. Int J Oral

Maxillofac Surg. 2009;38(1):13-8.

Miyawaki S, Koyama I, Inoue M, Mishima K,

Sugahara T, Takano-Yamamoto T. Factors

associated with the stability of titanium screws

placed in the posterior region for orthodontic

anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.


Deguchi T, Takano-Yamamoto T, Kanomi R,

Hartsfield Jr J, Roberts W, Garetto L. The use of

small titanium screws for orthodontic anchorage. J

Dent Res. 2003;82(5):377-81.

Iijima M, Takano M, Yasuda Y, Muguruma T,

Nakagaki S, Sakakura Y, et al. Effect of the

quantity and quality of cortical bone on the failure

force of a miniscrew implant. Eur J Orthod.


Chang C, Liu SS, Roberts WE. Primary failure rate

for 1680 extra-alveolar mandibular buccal shelf

mini-screws placed in movable mucosa or attached

gingiva. Angle Orthod. 2015;85(6):905-10.

Marquezan M, Lima I, Lopes RT, Sant’Anna EF,

de Souza MMG. Is trabecular bone related to

primary stability of miniscrews? Angle Orthod.


Araghbidikashani M, Golshah A, Nikkerdar N,

Rezaei M. In-vitro impact of insertion angle on

primary stability of miniscrews. Am J Orthod

Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;150(3):436-43.

Mohammed H, Wafaie K, Rizk MZ, Almuzian M,

Sosly R, Bearn DR. Role of anatomical sites and

correlated risk factors on the survival of

orthodontic miniscrew implants: a systematic

review and meta-analysis. Prog Orthod.


Machado GL. CBCT imaging - A boon to

orthodontics. Saudi Dent J. 2015;27(1):12-21.

Dharmadeep G, Naik MK, Reddy YM, Cheruluri

S, Raj KP, Reddy BR. Three-dimensional

evaluation of interradicular areas and cortical bone

thickness for orthodontic miniscrew implant

placement using cone-beam computed

tomography. J Pharm Bioallied Sci.


Arisan V, Karabuda ZC, Avsever H, Özdemir T.

Conventional multi‐slice computed tomography

(CT) and cone‐beam CT (CBCT) for computer‐

assisted implant placement. Part I: Relationship of

radiographic gray density and implant stability.

Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013;15(6):893-906.

Mageet1a AO. Classification of skeletal and dental

malocclusion: revisited. Stoma Edu J. 2016; ;3(3-


Khumsarn N, Patanaporn V, Janhom A,

Jotikasthira D. Comparison of interradicular

distances and cortical bone thickness in Thai

patients with Class I and Class II skeletal patterns

using cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging

Sci Dent. 2016;46(2):117-25.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG.

Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1:

Tests for correlation and regression analyses.

Behav Res Methods. 2009;41(4):1149-60.

Baysal A, Ucar FI, Buyuk SK, Ozer T, Uysal T.

Alveolar bone thickness and lower incisor position

in skeletal Class I and Class II malocclusions

assessed with cone-beam computed tomography.

Korean J Orthod. 2013;43(3):134-40.

Moslemzadeh SH, Sohrabi A, Rafighi A,

Kananizadeh Y, Nourizadeh A. Evaluation of

interdental spaces of the mandibular posterior area

for orthodontic mini-implants with cone-beam

computed tomography. J Clin Diagn Res.


Haddad R, Saadeh M. Distance to alveolar crestal

bone: a critical factor in the success of orthodontic

mini-implants. Prog Orthod. 2019;20(1):1-7.

Al-Jaf NM, Wahab RMA, Hassan MIA. Buccal

cortical bone thickness in different sagittal skeletal

relationship. Orthod Waves. 2018;77(4):220-5.

Choi YJ, Park Y. Three‐dimensional Application

of Orthodontic Miniscrews and Their Long‐term

Stability. Tempor Anchorage Devices Clin Orthod.


Di Stefano DA, Arosio P, Capparè P, Barbon S,

Gherlone EF. Stability of dental implants and

thickness of cortical bone: clinical research and

future perspectives. A systematic review.

Materials. 2021;14(23):7183.

Pan CY, Liu PH, Tseng YC, Chou ST, Wu CY,

Chang HP. Effects of cortical bone thickness and

trabecular bone density on primary stability of

orthodontic mini-implants. J Dent Sci.


Nucera R, Bellocchio AM, Oteri G, Farah AJ,

Rosalia L, Giancarlo C, et al. Bone and cortical

bone characteristics of mandibular retromolar

trigone and anterior ramus region for miniscrew

insertion in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial

Orthop. 2019;155(3):330-8.

Ozdemir F, Tozlu M, Germec-Cakan D. Cortical

bone thickness of the alveolar process measured

with cone-beam computed tomography in patients

with different facial types. Am J Orthod

Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143(2):190-6.

Farnsworth D, Rossouw PE, Ceen RF, Buschang

PH. Cortical bone thickness at common miniscrew

implant placement sites. Am J Orthod Dentofacial

Orthop. 2011;139(4):495-503.

Fayed MMS, Pazera P, Katsaros C. Optimal sites

for orthodontic mini-implant placement assessed

by cone beam computed tomography. Angle

Orthod. 2010;80(5):939-51.

Usui T, Maki K, Toki Y, Shibasaki Y, Takanobu

H, Takanishi A, et al. Mechanical strain on the

human skull in a humanoid robotic model. Am J

Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;126(4):421-31.

Watanabe H, Deguchi T, Hasegawa M, Ito M, Kim

S, Takano‐Yamamoto T. Orthodontic miniscrew

failure rate and root proximity, insertion angle,

bone contact length, and bone density. Orthod

Craniofac Res. 2013;16(1):44-55.

Cha BK, Kim CH, Baek SH. Skeletal sagittal and

vertical facial types and electromyographic

activity of the masticatory muscle. Angle Orthod.


Cassetta M, Sofan AA, Altieri F, Barbato E.

Evaluation of alveolar cortical bone thickness and

density for orthodontic mini-implant placement. J

Clin Exp Dent. 2013;5(5):e245-52.

Baumgaertel S, Hans MG. Buccal cortical bone

thickness for mini-implant placement. Am J

Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136(2):230-5.

Germec-Cakan D, Tozlu M, Ozdemir F. Cortical

bone thickness of the adult alveolar process-a

retrospective CBCT study. Aust Orthod J.


Hao Y, Zhao W, Wang Y, Yu J, Zou D.

Assessments of jaw bone density at implant sites

using 3D cone-beam computed tomography.

Group. 2014; 18(2): 1398-1403.

Wang SH, Shen YW, Fuh LJ, Peng SL, Tsai MT,

Huang HL, et al. Relationship between cortical

bone thickness and cancellous bone density at

dental implant sites in the jawbone. Diagnostics.


Casarin C, Bocalini D, Leite G, Serra A, Marchetti

P, Andrade E, et al. Effect of retrusive

displacement of the mandible and increase of the

oclusal vertical dimension on mandibular bone

density and the masticatory muscles of wistar rats.

Aust J Basic Appl Sci. 2015;7(13):1-7.

Koca H, Ergün S, Güneri P, Boyacıoglu H.

Evaluation of trabecular bone healing by fractal

analysis and digital subtraction radiography on

digitized panoramic radiographs: a preliminary

study. Oral Radiol. 2010;26(1):1-8.



How to Cite

A CBCT Study Comparing the Outcomes of Volumetric Bone Mass and Mini-Implant Success with Different Types of Malocclusions. (2024). Sulaimani Dental Journal, 11(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.17656/sdj.10185

Most read articles by the same author(s)