Quantitative investigation of palatal bone depth and cortical bone thickness for mini-implant placement in adults.

Primary stability and safety for palatal TADs depend on two anatomic variables: overall bone depth (BD) to avoid nasal perforation and cortical bone thickness (CBT) to achieve adequate insertion torque and stability. BD and CBT vary systematically across the palate, so site choice—not just screw design—drives success and risk mitigation in everyday mechanics.

Measurement Levels (MLs)

  • ML1: Canine–1st premolar
  • ML2: 1st–2nd premolars
  • ML3: 2nd premolar–1st molar
  • ML4: 1st–2nd molars

Key Principles

  • Bone Depth (BD): Greatest in anterior palate, decreases posteriorly.
  • Cortical Bone Thickness (CBT): Highest anteriorly, decreases posteriorly.
  • Primary Stability: Requires CBT > 1 mm for acceptable success.
  • Safe Implant Length:
    • Anterior (ML1 & ML2): 6–8 mm implants generally safe.
    • Posterior (ML3 & ML4): Risk of nasal perforation if ≥6 mm fully seated.

Bone Depth (BD) – Mean values (mm)

Level (ML)2 mm4 mm6 mm8 mm10 mmZone
ML 18.77.67.3🟢
ML 28.78.07.58.2🟢
ML 34.33.93.74.15.3🟡
ML 42.72.01.61.62.4🔴

Safe depth for ≥6 mm TAD is reliably found only at ML 1 & ML 2.

Cortical Bone Thickness (CBT) – Mean values (mm)

Level (ML)Mean CBT (mm)RangeZone
ML 11.490.65–2.43🟢
ML 21.140.13–1.97🟢
ML 31.040.10–2.78🟡
ML 41.000.30–2.04🟡/🔴

≥1 mm cortical thickness recommended for stability.

Quick Placement Guide

  • 🟢 Best sites: Paramedian ML 1 & ML 2 (safe, accessible, adequate BD + CBT)
  • 🟡 Variable sites: ML 3 (borderline, confirm with CBCT; angle placement if used)
  • 🔴 Avoid: ML 4 (thin bone, risk of perforation, thick soft tissue, vessels nearby)
  • ⚠️ Anterior caution: Stay clear of incisive canal (midline → only parasagittal placement)
  • 💡 Trick: Angulated placement ↑ available BD in posterior palate

MCQs

  1. The most favorable default site for palatal miniscrew placement in adults is:
  • A. Midline at incisive papilla
  • B. Paramedian at premolar level (ML1–ML2)
  • C. Paramedian at molar level (ML4)
  • D. Far lateral palate near greater palatine foramen
    Answer: B
    Rationale: Anterior paramedian sites (premolar region) combine higher bone depth with thicker cortex and easier access, reducing perforation and stability risks.
  1. Which pattern best describes palatal bone depth (BD) across adults?
  • A. Increases posteriorly and laterally
  • B. Decreases posteriorly and laterally
  • C. Constant across all levels
  • D. Highest at molar level
    Answer: B
    Rationale: BD trends highest anteriorly near the midline and declines toward posterior and lateral regions.
  1. For reliable primary stability of orthodontic miniscrews, a practical cortical bone thickness (CBT) threshold is:
  • A. ~0.3 mm
  • B. ~0.7 mm
  • C. ~1.0 mm or more
  • D. >2.5 mm always required
    Answer: C
    Rationale: About 1.0 mm CBT supports favorable insertion torque and stability without excessive site trauma.
  1. To reduce perforation risk for a posterior paramedian placement without CBCT, the most sensible tactic is:
  • A. Use longer screws (≥8 mm) and seat fully
  • B. Perpendicular insertion with full seating
  • C. Angulate insertion and/or accept partial seating
  • D. Shift to the midsagittal plane
    Answer: C
    Rationale: Angulation increases traversed bone; partial seating reduces unintended nasal entry when BD is borderline.
  1. Regarding the incisive canal, safer placement strategy is:
  • A. Sagittal midline at ML1
  • B. Paramedian at ML1–ML2
  • C. Midline further posterior
  • D. Crossing incisive papilla intentionally
    Answer: B
    Rationale: Paramedian avoids nasopalatine canal while preserving favorable BD/CBT.
  1. A key anatomic hazard in the posterolateral palate is the:
  • A. Lesser palatine artery
  • B. Greater palatine neurovascular bundle
  • C. Infraorbital nerve
  • D. Nasopalatine nerve
    Answer: B
    Rationale: The greater palatine bundle courses posterolaterally and must be respected.
  1. During insertion, approaching the nasal floor is often signaled by:
  • A. Sudden loss of torque
  • B. Soft tissue blanching alone
  • C. Firm “stop” from dense nasal cortical plate
  • D. Immediate gingival bleeding
    Answer: C
    Rationale: The dense nasal cortex provides distinct tactile resistance with slow, controlled placement.
  1. Typical mean BD at ML4 (molar-level paramedian) is:
  • A. >8 mm
  • B. 5–6 mm
  • C. 2–4 mm
  • D. <1 mm
    Answer: C
    Rationale: Posterior paramedian BD is often shallow, making fully seated 6 mm screws risky.
  1. Adult left–right differences in palatal BD/CBT are generally:
  • A. Large and significant
  • B. Significant only in females
  • C. Small and not statistically significant
  • D. Left always greater than right
    Answer: C
    Rationale: Side differences are typically negligible compared to anterior–posterior patterns.
  1. Immediate loading feasibility most closely relates to:
  • A. Soft tissue thickness
  • B. CBT and insertion torque
  • C. Screw head shape
  • D. Chronologic age alone
    Answer: B
    Rationale: Cortical thickness drives insertion torque, which underpins primary stability for loading.
  1. A practical default screw length for anterior paramedian adult palate is:
  • A. 4 mm
  • B. 6 mm
  • C. 10 mm
  • D. 12 mm
    Answer: B
    Rationale: Around 6 mm balances safety and stability in typical anterior paramedian BD.
  1. Completely seating a 6 mm screw at ML4 commonly:
  • A. Is always safe
  • B. Risks nasal perforation
  • C. Causes mucoceles routinely
  • D. Increases CBT
    Answer: B
    Rationale: Shallow posterior BD increases perforation risk with full seating.
  1. Management of a small nasal perforation during palatal TAD placement generally involves:
  • A. Mandatory surgical closure
  • B. Immediate removal plus nasal packing in all cases
  • C. Conservative observation; most heal uneventfully
  • D. Systemic steroids
    Answer: C
    Rationale: Small perforations usually resolve; escalate only if symptomatic.
  1. The midsagittal suture is often excluded from generalized site recommendations because:
  • A. CBCT artifacts dominate
  • B. High anatomic variability across adults
  • C. No cortical plate exists there
  • D. It cannot be measured
    Answer: B
    Rationale: Suture variability undermines generalized midline guidance.
  1. The single strongest driver of miniscrew design/length selection is:
  • A. Aesthetics
  • B. Brand
  • C. Placement site (location)
  • D. Patient preference
    Answer: C
    Rationale: Local anatomy dictates diameter, length, and thread engagement strategy.

Computed tomographic analysis of tooth-bearing alveolar bone for orthodontic miniscrew placement

Temporary anchorage devices enable controlled tooth movements such as anterior retraction, molar intrusion/distalization, nonsurgical open‑bite correction, and cant correction with simple placement, immediate loading, and minimal morbidity compared with plates or implants.

🔑 GENERAL PRINCIPLES

  • Safe mesiodistal space: ≥ 3 mm between roots
  • Safety depth (bone overlying narrowest interradicular area): ≥ 4 mm (ideally matching miniscrew length, 5–7 mm)
  • Preferred vertical level: 4 mm from CEJ (attached gingiva zone)
  • Anterior regions: Require subapical placement (≥ 6–8 mm from CEJ)
  • Posterior regions: Often safe at 4 mm; angulation increases clearance and cortical support
  • Placement angulation:
    • Straight/perpendicular in premolar and subapical anterior regions
    • Oblique/angulated in intermolar regions for safety

✅ COLOR LEGEND

  • 🟢 SAFE: Adequate mesiodistal space (≥3 mm) & safety depth
  • 🟡 CAUTION: Limited space; angulation or subapical placement needed
  • 🔴 AVOID: Insufficient space, high root risk

📍 MAXILLA

Region (Teeth)Level from CEJSafetyNotes
Central incisors8 mm🟡Subapical/equiapical only
Lateral incisor – Canine8 mm🟡Narrow at CEJ; safer apically
Canine – 1st premolar6 mm🟢Reliable site
1st – 2nd premolars4 mm🟢Consistently safe
2nd premolar – 1st molar4 mm🟢Best interdental space
1st – 2nd molars4–6 mm🟡Angulated placement advised

📍 MANDIBLE

Region (Teeth)Level from CEJSafetyNotes
Anterior incisorsAny🔴Avoid interradicular; only true subapical
Lateral incisor – Canine4–6 mm🔴Space ❤ mm
1st – 2nd premolars4 mm🟢Most reliable site
2nd premolar – 1st molar4 mm🟢Consistently safe
1st – 2nd molars4–6 mm🟢/🟡Safe; angulation may help for group distalization

Reference:
Lee KJ, et al. Computed tomographic analysis of tooth-bearing alveolar bone for orthodontic miniscrew placement.AJODO. 2009;135:486–94.

🦷 CLINICAL MCQs – Miniscrew Placement (Based on Lee et al., AJODO 2009)

Section A – Clinical MCQs (Single Best Answer)

  1. A 25-year-old patient requires intrusion of maxillary central incisors. Based on CT evidence, the safest site for miniscrew placement is:
    a) Between central incisors at 2 mm from CEJ
    b) Between central incisors at 8 mm from CEJ
    c) Between canine and 1st premolar at 2 mm from CEJ
    d) Between 1st and 2nd molars at 2 mm from CEJ
    Answer: b) Between central incisors at 8 mm from CEJ
  2. In the maxilla, the largest interdental space was observed:
    a) Between 1st and 2nd premolars at 4 mm
    b) Between 2nd premolar and 1st molar at 8 mm
    c) Between canine and 1st premolar at 2 mm
    d) Between 1st and 2nd molars at 2 mm
    Answer: b) Between 2nd premolar and 1st molar at 8 mm
  3. Which mandibular region is considered most reliable for miniscrew placement at 4 mm from CEJ?
    a) Between central incisors
    b) Between 1st and 2nd premolars
    c) Between lateral incisor and canine
    d) Between canine and 1st premolar
    Answer: b) Between 1st and 2nd premolars
  4. Miniscrew placement in the mandibular anterior region is best achieved by:
    a) 2–4 mm from CEJ in interradicular space
    b) Subapical placement only
    c) Angulated placement between central incisors
    d) Placement between lateral incisor and canine at 6 mm
    Answer: b) Subapical placement only

Section B – True / False

  1. Interradicular space greater than 3 mm is mandatory for safe miniscrew placement.
    True
  2. In the maxillary intermolar region, angulated miniscrew placement is recommended due to large safety depth but limited interroot space.
    True
  3. In the mandibular incisor region, sufficient interradicular space (>3 mm) is available at 4 mm from CEJ.
    False
  4. Buccal bone thickness is generally greater in posterior regions compared to anterior regions.
    True
  5. Panoramic radiographs are equally reliable as CT for identifying miniscrew safe zones.
    False

Section C – Match the Following

A (Region)B (Safe placement level / guideline)
1. Maxillary central incisorsa. 8 mm from CEJ (subapical/equiapical)
2. Maxillary 1st–2nd premolarsb. 4 mm from CEJ
3. Mandibular anterior incisorsc. Avoid interradicular; only subapical
4. Mandibular 1st–2nd premolarsd. 4 mm from CEJ (safe site)
5. Maxillary 1st–2nd molarse. Angulated placement due to large safety depth

Answer Key:
1–a, 2–b, 3–c, 4–d, 5–e

Direct-Printed Aligners: A Clinical Status Report

As orthodontic students, you’re entering the field at an exciting time of technological innovation. Traditional thermoformed aligners have revolutionized orthodontic treatment, but now we’re witnessing the emergence of direct 3D-printed aligners that promise to transform the way we approach clear aligner therapy.

Understanding Direct 3D-Printed Aligners

Direct 3D-printed aligners are fabricated using specialized photopolymer resins, with Tera Harz TC-85 being the most prominent FDA-approved material. Unlike traditional aligners that are vacuum-formed over printed models, these aligners are printed directly as complete shells, offering unprecedented design flexibility and customization possibilities.

Revolutionary Design Capabilities

What sets direct 3D-printed aligners apart is their unlimited design possibilities. As future orthodontists, you’ll have the ability to:

Fine-tune biomechanics by adjusting the thickness at any part of the aligner, enabling precise force delivery and production of countermoments for root movement. This level of customization was previously impossible with conventional thermoformed aligners.

Incorporate specialized features such as:

  • Cutouts and bite ramps for specific clinical situations
  • Class II advancement wings similar to functional appliances
  • Integrated tubes for TMA spring insertion in cases requiring gap closure after relapse
  • Hooks for elastics built directly into the aligner design
  • Pressure columns for extrusion movements, eliminating the need for attachments
  • Customized trim lines for optimal retention and comfort

Material Properties and Clinical Advantages

Shape Memory Technology

The most remarkable feature of TC-85 resin is its shape memory capability. After exposure to high temperatures, aligners can be deformed to easily snap over undercuts, but when maintained in the oral environment (above 30°C) for the prescribed 22 hours daily, any deformation self-corrects. This property ensures consistent force delivery throughout the treatment period.

Force Delivery Characteristics

Research demonstrates that direct 3D-printed aligners apply continuous, light forces due to their unique viscoelastic properties. Studies show that force levels during extrusion movements are significantly lower compared to thermoformed aligners, potentially reducing patient discomfort and unwanted side effects.

The ability to customize thickness at different aligner regions allows for better force distribution, optimizing tooth movement while minimizing adverse effects. This represents a significant advancement in biomechanical control that you’ll appreciate in your clinical practice.

Durability and Performance

TC-85 aligners maintain their mechanical properties for at least one week of intraoral use. Unlike thermoplastic aligners, they can remain at body temperature without losing force from deformation, ensuring consistent treatment progression. However, surface roughness and porosity increase after one week of wear, similar to conventional aligners.

Workflow Steps

  1. Digital Setup & Staging
    – Software platforms (e.g., Graphy DAD)
    – Movement limits: 0.25–0.30 mm per tooth; ≤2° angulation
  2. 3D Printing
    – 6–8 aligners per run (30–60 min)
  3. Cleaning & Support Removal
    – Centrifuge 6 min; manual support removal
  4. Post-Processing
    – UV cure (17–25 min in N₂); polish; ultrasonic clean

Software Tools

  • Graphy Direct Aligner Designer (free)
  • Commercial: 3Shape, Blue Sky Plan, NemoStudio

📌 Source: Ludwig B, Ojima K, Schmid JQ, Knode V, Nanda R. Direct-Printed Aligners: A Clinical Status Report. J Clin Orthod. 2024;58(11):658–668

Morphometric analysis of cervical vertebrae in relation to mandibular growth

CVM Basics

  • Vertebrae used: C2, C3, C4
  • Visible on lateral cephalogram (no extra radiation)
  • Traditionally used to estimate skeletal maturity & mandibular growth peak

CVM Stages (Baccetti et al.)

  • CS1 – Inferior borders of C2–C4 flat; bodies trapezoidal.
  • CS2 – Concavity begins at C2 lower border.
  • CS3 – Concavity at C2 & C3; bodies less trapezoid.
  • CS4 – Distinct concavities at C2–C4; bodies nearly rectangular.
  • CS5 – Strong concavities; square vertebrae.
  • CS6 – Deep concavities; taller than wide.

CVM Shape Changes with Age

  • C2–C4 Inferior Borders → Concavity increases with age
  • C3 & C4 Height → Becomes taller, shape transitions trapezoid → rectangular/square
  • Sex Difference: Girls reach each stage earlier than boys

Study Findings (Gray et al., 2016)

✅ Morphometric changes match classic CVM descriptions
❌ CVM stages did not reliably predict mandibular growth peak
👉 Growth peak often occurred before or after CS3, not always between CS3–CS4

Peak mandibular growth: typically occurs around CS3, but study shows high variability:

  • 32% after CS3
  • 28% after CS1
  • 20% after CS2
  • 20% after CS4
  • No growth peak at CS5 or CS6

Clinical Pearls

  • CVM can confirm if peak growth has passed, but
  • Chronologic age is often a better predictor than CVM alone
  • Always combine with:
    • Secondary sex characteristics
    • Height/weight velocity
    • Dental development
    • Clinical growth indicators

📌 Quick Rule of Thumb

  • Before CS3 → Growth spurt may still be coming.
  • At CS3 → Possible growth peak (but variable).
  • After CS4 → Growth peak has passed.

Clinical MCQs – Cervical Vertebrae & Mandibular Growth


Q1.

A 12-year-old boy presents for orthodontic evaluation. His lateral cephalogram shows concavity in the inferior borders of C2 and C3, but not yet in C4. The vertebral bodies are less trapezoid, approaching rectangular.
What can be inferred about his mandibular growth peak?

A. Growth peak is most likely already passed
B. Growth peak is occurring now or will occur soon
C. Growth peak cannot occur at this stage
D. Growth peak will only occur at CS5–CS6

Answer: B
Explanation: Concavities at C2 and C3 correspond to CS3, which is often associated with the timing of peak mandibular growth. However, variability exists (some peak after CS1, CS2, or CS4).


Q2.

During a growth assessment, a girl’s cephalogram shows all three cervical vertebrae (C2–C4) with distinct concavities, and the vertebral bodies appear rectangular and taller. She is 14 years old.
What is the most likely clinical implication?

A. She is approaching mandibular growth peak
B. She is currently at growth peak
C. She has already passed mandibular growth peak
D. She will have another growth spurt at CS6

Answer: C
Explanation: Distinct concavities and rectangular vertebrae (CS4 or later) suggest the growth peak has passed.


Q3.

Which of the following statements best reflects the findings of the study?

A. CVM staging alone is a reliable predictor of mandibular growth peak
B. Morphometric analysis can clearly differentiate “before” and “during” mandibular growth peak
C. Chronologic age is a better predictor of mandibular growth peak than CVM stage
D. Mandibular growth always occurs after CS3

Answer: C
Explanation: The study found chronologic age correlated more consistently with mandibular growth than CVM staging. Morphometric differences were only clear after the peak, not before vs during.


Q4.

An orthodontist uses CVM staging to plan functional appliance therapy in a boy. His CVM stage is CS3. According to the study, what percentage of children actually reach peak mandibular growth after CS3?

A. 20%
B. 28%
C. 32%
D. 50%

Answer: C
Explanation: Only 32% of participants reached peak mandibular growth after CS3, highlighting variability.


Q5.

Which of the following sex differences were observed in the study regarding mandibular growth peak timing?

A. Boys reached peak earlier (mean 11.7 yrs) than girls (mean 12.8 yrs)
B. Girls reached peak earlier (mean 11.7 yrs) than boys (mean 12.8 yrs)
C. No sex differences were found in timing of growth peak
D. CVM stage timing was identical in both sexes

Answer: B
Explanation: Girls reached mandibular growth peak earlier (mean 11.7 years) than boys (12.8 years).


Three-dimensional soft tissue analysis of the face following micro-implant-supported maxillary skeletal expansion

MSE and the face: what actually changes

Micro‑implant‑supported maxillary skeletal expansion (MSE) applies orthopedic forces through palatal mini-implants to split the midpalatal suture, yet its soft‑tissue effects have been less clear than its skeletal outcomes

This study used 3D stereophotogrammetry to quantify facial soft‑tissue changes immediately after expansion and at one‑year retention, revealing significant, stable changes localized to the paranasal region, upper lip, and both cheeks.

🔹 Protocol

  • Appliance: MSE with 4 palatal mini-implants
  • Activation: 0.25 mm turns, 1–2/day (per Cantarella protocol)
  • Monitoring: Midline diastema + CBCT confirmation

🔹 Soft Tissue Effects (3D Analysis)

  • Paranasal area → mean displacement 1.3–1.5 mm
  • Cheeks → greater displacement (R: 2.4 mm, L: 2.9 mm)
  • Direction: forward + lateral (dominant anterior)
  • Stable at 1-year retention

🔹 Clinical Pearls

✅ Changes most visible around cheeks and paranasal areas
✅ Facial symmetry can vary → expansion often slightly asymmetric
✅ 3D scans are superior to 2D photos for monitoring changes
✅ No significant relapse after 1 year

🔹 Quick Comparison

ExpanderEffectNotes
Tooth-borne (Hyrax/Haas)Dentoalveolar tippingRisk of root resorption
Bone-borne (MSE)True skeletal expansionStable soft tissue changes

Bottom line

MSE produces significant, forward‑lateral soft‑tissue enhancement centered on the paranasal/upper lip and cheeks, with the cheeks showing the largest and most clinically perceptible displacements that remain stable at one year

External root resorption and rapid maxillary expansion: TB vs BB comparison at post-retention

So, we’ve all sat through those ortho lectures where the professor keeps throwing around terms like “external root resorption” and “tooth-borne versus bone-borne expanders,” and honestly, at first, it feels like way too much. But here’s the simple breakdown of what’s actually happening.

Rapid Maxillary Expansion (RME) is used to fix transverse maxillary deficiency. The problem? The forces aren’t exactly gentle—they’re around 0.9 to 4.5 kg—and sometimes your roots pay the price. That’s where ERR (External Root Resorption) comes in.

Now, there are two main types of expanders:

  • Tooth-borne (Hyrax type): All the force is on the teeth.
  • Bone-borne (MARPE type): Screws in the palate take the load instead.

Now, how do we actually see ERR? That’s where CBCT comes in. It’s almost as accurate as micro-CT (which is super precise but can only be used on extracted teeth). Studies using CBCT showed that first molars (M1) and first premolars (P1) lose root volume after expansion, and even second premolars (P2) — the ones not holding the appliance — can get affected too. Forces spread everywhere!

Here’s the important point: most studies only looked at ERR right after expansion. But remember, cementum can repair itself a bit over time. So if you only check right away, you might overestimate the “permanent” damage. That’s why this study looked at ERR after 6 months of retention — to see what happens once the dust settles.

Here’s what the research shows:

  • Tooth-borne RME → more ERR. First molars lose the most root volume (around 17 mm³), followed by premolars. Even second premolars, which aren’t directly attached, still show resorption.
  • Bone-borne RME → less ERR. Molars only lose about 3 mm³. There’s still some resorption, but it’s way less compared to tooth-borne.

📊 Findings (6-month post-retention, CBCT-based)

ToothERR Volume Loss (mm³)TB GroupBB Group
M1 (1st molar)Highest17.033.11
P1 (1st premolar)Moderate6.421.04
P2 (2nd premolar)Least5.261.24
  • All teeth showed ERR (anchored + unanchored).
  • M1 palatal root most affected in length shortening.
  • ERR localized to apical, bucco-apical & bucco-medial areas.
  • Greater in TB vs. BB, but differences clinically questionable.
  • Mechanism of ERR: The buccal forces from the RME appliance compress the periodontal ligament, leading to tissue hyalinization. ERR occurs during the subsequent removal of this necrotic tissue on the compressed (buccal) side of the root. The root apex is also a sensitive area due to high force concentration and denser bone.

⚠️ Clinical Insights

  • Amount of root shortening (~0.3 mm) unlikely to affect longevity.
  • Bone-borne expanders ↓ ERR risk but do not eliminate it.
  • Cementum repair may occur post-retention.

📖 Citation

Leonardi R, Ronsivalle V, Barbato E, Lagravère M, Flores-Mir C, Lo Giudice A.
External root resorption and rapid maxillary expansion: TB vs BB comparison at post-retention.
Progress in Orthodontics. 2022; 23:45.

Maxillary Expansion in Skeletally Mature Patients with TADs

Why is Expansion Challenging in Adults?

  • Sutural resistance is much stronger due to interdigitation.
  • Main resistance sites:
    • Zygomatic buttress
    • Pterygopalatine suture
    • Midpalatal suture

👉 Viva Q: What are the main resistance structures?
✔️ A: Zygomatic buttress, pterygopalatine suture, midpalatal suture.

Conventional Approaches

SARPE (Surgically Assisted Rapid Palatal Expansion)

  • Weakens sutures via osteotomies.
  • Allows expansion in adults.
  • Produces V-shaped expansion (more anterior widening).
  • Invasive: hospitalization + morbidity.

👉 Contrast Viva: SARPE vs Tooth-borne RPE

  • Both → V-shaped expansion.
  • SARPE works in adults; RPE only in growing patients.
  • SARPE invasive; RPE non-invasive.

Revolution with TADs

MARPE (Microimplant-Assisted Rapid Palatal Expansion)

  • Miniscrews placed anterior palate (thick bone)
  • More anterior/inferior expansion than posterior/superior
  • Fewer dental side effects vs RPE

👉 Viva Q: Why does MARPE show more anterior expansion?
✔️ Because implants are anterior to posterior resistance sites.


MSE (Maxillary Skeletal Expander)

  • Developed by Won Moon (2003)
  • Posterior + superior force application
    • Acts on zygomatic buttress, pterygopalatine & midpalatal sutures
  • Design:
    • 4 microimplants (Ø 1.5–1.8 mm × 11 mm)
    • Bicortical engagement (palatal + nasal cortex)
  • Effects:
    • Parallel skeletal expansion (not V-shaped)
    • Minimal tipping/lateral rotation
    • Nasal cavity expansion → improved airway
    • Stability proven up to 5 years

👉 Contrast Viva: MARPE vs MSE

  • MARPE: anterior implants, anterior/inferior expansion, may allow tipping
  • MSE: posterior bicortical implants, parallel expansion including posterior & superior, minimizes tipping

Indications (MARPE/MSE)

✅ Skeletally mature patients with narrow arch
✅ Bilateral posterior crossbite
✅ Nasal airway obstruction
✅ Non-surgical alternative to SARPE
✅ Need for posterior/superior nasal cavity expansion

Contraindications

❌ Poor posterior palatal bone quality
❌ Active periodontal disease
❌ Palatal bone <4 mm
❌ Poor compliance
❌ Medical contraindications to minor surgery

APPLIANCE COMPONENTS of MARPE

  • Jackscrew: Positioned between maxillary first molars
  • Microimplants: Four implants (1.5-1.8mm Ø, 11mm length)
  • Engagement: Bicortical (palatal + nasal cortex)
  • Framework: Rigid design for parallel expansion

PLACEMENT PROTOCOL of MARPE

  • Pre-op CBCT for bone thickness
  • Site: T-zone (distal to 3rd rugae, 2nd premolar region)
  • Align force vectors toward zygomatic buttress (center of resistance)
  • Tight adaptation to palatal vault
  • Ensure bicortical penetration

👉 Viva Q: Why is MARPE positioned anterior to the soft palate (T-zone)?
✔️ To direct forces through the palatal vault toward the zygomatic buttress, optimizing skeletal expansion and reducing tipping.

The MSE was specifically designed to apply expansion force more posteriorly against the zygomatic buttress bones and pterygopalatine sutures, and more superiorly against the midpalatal suture and superiorly positioned perimaxillary suture

The MARPE appliance is sited anterior to the soft palate—in the T-zone at the level of the second premolars—so that its miniscrews deliver force vectors through the palatal vault directly toward the zygomatic buttress, optimizing skeletal expansion and minimizing dental tipping. With expansion, a lateral force is applied directly to the midplatal suture medial to the zygomatic buttress. This force distribution promotes more even expansion anteroposteriorly

Biomechanical Rationale:
The zygomatic buttress is the center of resistance of the maxillary complex during transverse expansion. Positioning MARPE miniscrews in the T-zone aligns the force vector with this buttress, shortening the moment arm to skeletal resistance points and producing more parallel, translational movement of the maxillary halves rather than rotational tipping of the alveolar processes or teeth.

T-Zone Landmark:

  • Defined by Poorsattar-Bejeh Mir et al. as the area distal to the third rugae, corresponding clinically to the second premolar region in the anterior palate.
  • This zone offers maximal palatal bone thickness with minimal soft tissue height, ensuring bicortical engagement and implant stability.

The amount of lateral rotation seen with an MSE is associated with the archial movement of the hemi-midface, with a fulcrum near the frontozygomatic sutures

With a high‑lateral fulcrum at the frontozygomatic region, the hemi‑midface opens like a fan around that pivot, producing outward archial rotation of the zygomatico‑maxillary block and relatively parallel separation of the maxillary halves

One‐line Answer
“Engaging both palatal and nasal cortical plates at the implant neck and apex distributes load across two dense bony layers, minimizing microimplant neck bending and internal strain.”

Biomechanical Explanation

When a microimplant is bicortically engaged, its neck is stabilized by the thin palatal cortical plate while its apex is anchored in the thicker nasal (or floor) cortical plate. Under lateral expansion forces, this dual‐plane engagement creates a load path through two rigid cortices rather than a single bone interface. Consequently, bending moments and shear stresses at the implant neck are significantly reduced, decreasing risk of neck‐plate microfracture and implant loosening.

ACTIVATION PROTOCOL

PhaseRateDurationEndpoint
Initial0.5-0.8mm dailyUntil diastema appearsMidline separation
Maintenance0.2-0.27mm dailyUntil adequate expansionMax width > Mand width

SUCCESS INDICATORS

  • ✓ Midline diastema formation
  • ✓ Patient reports breathing improvement
  • ✓ Parallel sutural opening on CBCT
  • ✓ Stable implants (no mobility)
  • ✓ Manageable pain/swelling levels

RETENTION PROTOCOL

  • Keep MSE body as skeletal retainer (6+ months)
  • Remove expansion arms after space closure
  • Immediate orthodontic space closure recommended
  • Long-term stability documented up to 5 years

TROUBLESHOOTING

ProblemSolution
Implant failureCheck bicortical engagement
Asymmetric expansionVerify implant stability
Excessive painReduce activation rate
No diastemaRe-evaluate bone maturity
Tissue inflammationNormal healing response

Midpalatal suture bone repair after miniscrew‑assisted rapid palatal expansion in adults

Maxillary constriction is a common problem we face in orthodontics. In younger patients, rapid palatal expansion (RPE) works beautifully because the midpalatal suture is still immature and repairs predictably. But in adults, things get tricky. Conventional RPE is often insufficient, and that’s where miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expansion (MARPE)comes in.

A recent study by Naveda et al. (2022) looked into how the midpalatal suture actually repairs in adults after MARPE. And the findings are important for how we plan retention and manage expectations in this age group.

🦴 Midpalatal Suture Repair (16 months post-MARPE)

  • Incomplete repair common in adults
  • Bone density ↓ (vs. pre-expansion):
    • Anterior: –34%
    • Median: –77%
    • Posterior: –52%
  • Anterior region always repaired (100%)
  • Middle third = weakest (57% unrepaired)
  • >50% repair in 81% of patients

📊 Repair Scoring (0–3 scale)

ScoreDescriptionFrequency
0No repair0%
1<50% repair19%
2>50% repair38%
3Complete repair43%

🔑 Clinical Takeaways

✔ Expect slower & incomplete repair in adults
✔ Anterior + posterior heal better (vascular supply)
✔ Middle third caution → miniscrew zone, less vascularity
✔ Always reinforce retention

🔒 Retention Protocol

  • Maintain expander in situ: 12 months
  • After removal → place 0.8 mm stainless steel TPA
  • Monitor with CBCT + visual scoring
  • Inform patients: repair ≠ full ossification even after 16 months

Cup of Coffee with Dr.Khushal Makhija

“Dentistry is saturated,” they said.
“Pick MBBS,” they said.
But Dr. Khushal Makhija? He looked at that mountain called Dentistry and thought—why not climb Everest instead? 🏔️✨

Armed with a NEET rank most would trade for, he still chose the drill over the stethoscope. And thank God he did—because his idea of success isn’t just fillings and crowns, it’s making sure no patient ever leaves the chair unsatisfied.

And here’s the kicker: in a world where most see limits, he sees opportunity. While others sigh at saturation, he smirks—because that’s just fewer people to compete with on his way to the top two percent.

Trust me, this is one interview you don’t want to skip. If you’ve ever wondered “Is dentistry really worth it?”—here’s your answer, served with grit, wit, and a little sparkle.

👉 Read the full interview in Dentowesome Monsoon 2025 | Issue No. 3 — 

Molar Intrusion with Temporary Anchorage Devices

🔎 Indications

  • Supraerupted molars (commonly due to early loss of opposing tooth)
  • Need for posterior intrusion to re-establish occlusion
  • Minimally invasive alternative to surgery, headgear, or prosthetic crown reduction

🛠 TAD Design

  • Material: Titanium alloy
  • Size: 6–12 mm length, 1.2–2.0 mm diameter
  • Fixation: Mechanical grip to cortical bone (not osseointegrated)
  • Placement:
    • Minimally invasive
    • Often only topical anesthesia
    • Inserted through gingiva into bone with hand driver
    • Optional: mucosal punch/pilot hole in thick tissue or dense bone
  • Loading: Immediate
  • Removal: Simple hand unscrewing
  • Failure rate: 9–30%

🔩 Types of TADs

1. Self-tapping

  • Conical design, threaded shaft, tapered tip
  • Requires pilot hole → then inserted with hand driver

2. Self-drilling

  • Corkscrew design, threaded shaft, sharp tip
  • Cuts through bone, expels debris
  • Placed directly with hand driver (no pilot hole)

👩‍⚕️ Patient Selection

  • ≥ 12 years (FDA approved)
  • Avoid: growing patients (palatal suture), heavy smokers, bone metabolic disorders

Optimal Placement

  • Maxilla:
    • Between 2nd premolar & 1st molar (5–8 mm from alveolar crest)
    • Angle: 30–45° to occlusal plane (posterior region)
    • Palatal slope (avoid greater palatine nerve)
    • Midpalatal region = D1/D2 bone
  • Mandible:
    • Either side of 1st molar (~11 mm from crest)
    • Angle: 30–45° to occlusal plane
  • Bone Density (Misch classification):
    • Best: D1–D3 (dense cortical, anterior regions, palatal, posterior mandible)
    • Avoid: D4 (tuberosity – failure rate up to 50%)
    • Mnemonic“One Oak, Two Pine, Three Balsa, Four Foam”
  • Soft Tissue Health
    • Better: Keratinized (attached) tissue → ↓ failure
    • Worse: Nonkeratinized mucosa → gingival inflammation, overgrowth
    • Tip: In buccal posterior, if risk of root proximity → place in alveolar mucosa
TypeHU RangeLocationAnalogyTAD Suitability
D1>1250 HUAnterior mandible, buccal shelf, midpalatalOak 🌳✔ Best, may need pilot hole
D2850–1250 HUAnt. maxilla, midpalatal, post. mandiblePine 🌲✔ Good
D3350–850 HUPost. maxilla & mandible (thin cortex)Balsa wood✔ Acceptable
D4150–350 HUTuberosity regionPolystyrene foam❌ High failure (35–50%)

Bone Availability (Safe Zones)

RegionBest SiteDistance from Crest
Maxilla (posterior)Between 2nd premolar & 1st molar5–8 mm
Mandible (posterior)Either side of 1st molar~11 mm
Anterior (maxilla & mandible)Between canine & lateral incisor

If inadequate space:

  • Palatal placement
  • Root divergence before insertion

Insertion Technique

RegionAngle of InsertionRationale
Posterior Maxilla30°–45° to occlusal planeCortical anchorage; balance safety & stability
Anterior Maxilla / Posterior Edentulous Maxilla~90° to occlusal plane (parallel to sinus floor)Avoid sinus perforation, biomechanically better for molar intrusion
Mandible30°–45° to occlusal planeGreater contact with thick cortical bone

🔹 Tip: Orthodontic wire surgical stent may be used to guide accurate insertion

Force Loading Guidelines

ConditionRecommended ForceNotes
General loading limit≤ 300 gBeyond this = risk of failure
Thin cortical bone~50 g(Dalstra)
Dense mandibular boneStable up to 900 g(Buchter)
Maxillary molar intrusion (children)90 g(Kalra)
Maxillary molar intrusion (adults)50 g(Melsen)
Miniscrew-supported max molar intrusion100–200 gOptimal range
En-masse intrusion (PM2 + M1 + M2)200–400 g/sideRequires more force
Miniplate-supported mand molar intrusion500 g(Umemori)

Post-Insertion Care

Chlorhexidine Rinse (0.12%)

  • 10 mL BID for 1 week (continue if needed)
  • Prevents soft tissue inflammation & overgrowth
  • Slows epithelialization → keeps miniscrew head accessible

⚠️ Important Instruction for Patients:

  • Wait 30 min after rinsing before brushing with fluoridated toothpaste (to avoid inactivation of chlorhexidine by anionic agents in toothpaste).
TechniquePlacementControl of TippingNotes
Single TADBuccal dentoalveolus (between PM2 & M1 at mucogingival junction)Transpalatal arch (TPA) with buccal root activationTPA raised 3–5 mm → tongue pressure aids intrusion
Two TADsBuccal: between M1 & M2 Palatal: slope between PM2 & M1 (medial to greater palatine nerve)Elastic chain / NiTi coil passes diagonally across occlusal tableRisk of palatal tipping → may need partial braces
Palatal / MidlineMidline or palatal slope if interradicular space inadequateExtension arm to reach slope; partial braces for controlUsed when buccal bone insufficient

Intrusion Rates

Root Resorption Risks

  • Mechanism: Intrusive force concentrates at apex → PDL compression → possible necrosis & resorption
  • Evidence:
    • Molars = second highest risk (after incisors)
    • Documented in molars with:
      • Tip-back mechanics
      • High-pull headgear intrusion
      • Distalization forces
    • Range: 25–240 g can cause histologic resorption (Reitan)
  • Controversy:
    • Some studies show no significant difference between light (50 g) vs heavy (200 g) forces in resorption risk (Owman-Moll)
    • Ari-Demirkaya et al. → Mean apical resorption only 0.18 ± 0.18 mm after 7 months
    • Comparable to conventional orthodontics → not clinically significant
  • Sinus floor effects:
    • Intruding palatal root may lift sinus floor membrane intranasally
    • Usually without complications

Risks & Complications

ComplicationClinical NoteManagement / Prognosis
Root traumaInjury to PDL/root → possible vitality loss or ankylosisIf no pulp involvement → repair in 3–4 months
Anchorage failureMiniscrews may loosen, tip, or extrudeMobile screw → must be replaced; usually due to thin cortical bone or excessive force
Soft tissue irritationMore common in loose alveolar mucosa → inflammation, overgrowth, ulcersPrefer keratinized tissue; hygiene + CHX rinse
Nerve injuryGreater palatine nerve risk in palatal slope (5–15 mm from gingival border, lateral to M2/M3)Careful site selection & angulation
Sinus perforationSmall (<2 mm) usually self-heals, no effect on stabilityLarge perforation → possible sinusitis or oroantral fistula
RelapseExtrusion of intruded molars commonAverage relapse ≈ 30%