Feasibility of mini-implant insertion between mesial and distal buccal roots of a maxillary first molar: A cone-beam computed tomography imaging study.

INTRODUCTION: Mini-implant insertion in the maxillary posterior region can be influenced by anatomic limitations, thus increasing the failure rate. We explored the feasibility of a new implantation site: the region between the mesial and distal buccal roots of the maxillary first molar. METHODS: Cone-beam computed tomography data from 177 patients were collected from a database. The maxillary first molars were morphologically classified by analyzing the angle and morphology of the mesial and distal buccal roots. Next, 77 subjects were randomly selected from the 177 patients to measure and analyze the hard-tissue morphology in the maxillary posterior region. RESULTS: We devised the Morphological Classification on the Mesial and Distal Buccal Roots of Maxillary First Molar (MCBRMM), divided into 3 types: MCBRMM-I, II, and III. In all subjects, MCBRMM-I, II, and III accounted for 43%, 25%, and 32%, respectively. At 8 mm from the mesial cementoenamel junction of maxillary first molars, the interradicular distance between the maxillary first molar's mesiodistal buccal roots of MCBRMM-I was 2.6 mm, showing an upward trend from the cementoenamel junction to the apex. The distance from the buccal bone cortex to the palatal root was >9 mm. The buccal cortical thickness was >1 mm. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided a potential site for mini-implant insertion in the maxillary posterior region: the alveolar bone of maxillary first molars in MCBRMM-I.

Investigation of periodontal status and bacterial composition aroundmini-implants.

INTRODUCTION: Mini-implants are now widely used in orthodontic treatment. Soft-tissue inflammation around the mini-implant is an important factor affecting its stability. This study aimed to investigate the periodontal status and the bacterial composition around mini-implants. METHODS: A total of 79 mini-implants in 40 patients (aged 18-45 years) were evaluated in this study. The mini-implant probing depth (mPD), mini-implant gingival sulcus bleeding index (mBI), mini-implant plaque index (mPLI), and the composition of the supragingival and subgingival plaque around the mini-implants were recorded. After Congo red staining, the bacteria were classified and counted under a light microscope. RESULTS: The mPLI and mBI around mini-implants in the infrazygomatic crest were higher than those in the buccal shelf and interradicular area. The mPD was higher on the coronal site of the mini-implant than on the mesial, distal, and apical sites in the infrazygomatic crest. The mPLI around the mini-implant was positively correlated with the mBI, and the mBI was positively correlated with the mPD. The supragingival and subgingival bacterial composition around the mini-implants was similar to that of natural teeth. Compared with supragingival bacterial composition, the subgingival bacteria of mini-implants had a significantly lower proportion of cocci and a higher proportion of bacilli and spirochetes. CONCLUSIONS: The bacteria composition of the plaque and the location are important factors in the inflammation around mini-implants. Similar to natural teeth, mini-implants require health maintenance to prevent inflammation of the surrounding soft tissue and maintain stability.