Tadinada A, et al. Imaging Sci Dent. 2015 Sep;45(3):169-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.5624/isd.2015.45.3.169

Objective: : To compare the outcome of mini implant placement by four different methods: blind placement, a single periapical radiograph (PA), a single panoramic radiograph, and a small-volume cone-beam computed tomography (SV-CBCT). Our hypothesis was that SV-CBCT, with its high resolution, low radiation dose, and three-dimensional depiction of area of interest would yield superior diagnostic information in assessing the potential anchorage site compared to currently used methods that often result in undesired root perforations. Materials and Methods: : Potential mini implant sites of 20 dentate or partially dentate human skulls were imaged using three different imaging modalities: PA, panoramic radiograph, and SV-CBCT. Mini implants were placed in 10 maxillary and 10 mandibular randomized sites blindly and using each of the three imaging modalities. Large-volume CBCT scans done postoperatively were used to detect root perforation. Two oral radiologists analyzed the images for perforation of root structures at each site. Results: : There was significantly ( P < .05) less root perforation with SV-CBCT when compared with other imaging modalities. Fifty-five percent of mini implants placed blindly, 60% of mini implants placed using PA, and 50% of mini implants placed using a panoramic radiograph perforated a root structure, whereas only 5% of mini implants placed using SV-CBCT perforated a root structure. Conclusions: : Preoperative evaluation of potential mini implant insertion sites using SV-CBCT aids in predictable placement and results in the least amount of root perforation.

Jadhav AB, et al. Imaging Sci Dent. 2014 Jun;44(2):165-169. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2014.44.2.165

Jadhav AB, et al. Imaging Sci Dent. 2018 Sep;48(3):223-226. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2018.48.3.223