Because the miniscrew is becoming more common in orthodontic treatment, achieving precision of miniscrew insertion, reduction of the risk of root damage, and improvement of the success rate of miniscrew insertion have become important. With the develo...
Because the miniscrew is becoming more common in orthodontic treatment, achieving precision of miniscrew insertion, reduction of the risk of root damage, and improvement of the success rate of miniscrew insertion have become important. With the development of digital technology, it has become possible to create a dental model using an intraoral scanner rather than a plaster model, and as the clinical use of dental CBCT (cone beam computed tomography) increases, CBCT can be used to superimpose the tooth model and radiograph. Therefore, This study aimed to assess the use of surgical guides with computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing technology in achieving these ends.
A randomized clinical trial was conducted with 59 patients (100 miniscrews) who required miniscrew placement during orthodontic treatment. In each patient, a miniscrew (BMK, Korea, cylinder, 1.5x7 mm) was placed in the buccal interradicular space using panoramic radiography and dental CBCT. To evaluate the initial stability after miniscrew placement, the insertion torque (IT) and Periotest value (PTV) were measured twice. Periapical radiographs were obtained to assess root contact. Miniscrews maintained for more than 6 months were considered successful.
1. The success rate of the manual group was 80.9 % and the success rate of the surgical guide group was 88.9 %. There was statistically insignificant difference in the success rate using the surgical guide (p>0.05). In the Kaplan-Meyer survival analysis, miniscrews were failed early than 50 days in the manual group, whereas most of miniscrews were failed after 120 days in the guide group.
2. The root contact rate was 31.9 % in the manual group and 0.4 % in the surgical guide group, and the root contact rate was low when using the surgical guide, showing a statistically significant difference (p <0.001).
3. The insertion torque was 6.37 ± 2.64 Ncm in the manual group and 6.54 ± 2.90 Ncm in the surgical guide group, but the difference was not statistically significant (p> 0.05) and The PTV was 0.19 ± 2.86 in the guide group and 1.58 ± 2.13 in the manual guide group, which showed a statistically significant difference (p <0.05).
4. The insertion torque of was 6.56 ± 2.86 Ncm in the success group and 5.89 ± 2.18 Ncm in the failure group, but the difference was not statistically significant (p> 0.05) and The PTV was 0.57 ± 2.62 in the success group and 2.72 ± 1.45 in the failure group, which showed a statistically significant difference(p <0.01).
5. A total of five (10%) miniscrews were excluded due to the risk of the miniscrew guide itself. They were 4% of surgical guide slippage, 6% of adaptability problem.
The rate of miniscrew contact with the root was significantly lower in the surgical-guide group than in the manual group. The present study recommends the use of surgical guides for the stable placement of miniscrews in cases of anatomical limitations or the high possibility of root contact with the miniscrew.