Get a weekly digest of the latest psychedelic research, new studies, and platform updates delivered to your inbox.
No spam, ever. Unsubscribe anytime.
To investigate the differences in palatal bone thickness among adult patients with different sagittal skeletal patterns using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), and to analyse the safe regions for palatal anchor screw implantation in these patients. This is a retrospective cross-sectional study. We retrospectively selected preoperative CBCT data from 90 adult patients (age: 26.5 5.8 years) with Angle Class malocclusion treated between 2023 and 2025, divided into skeletal Class I, II, and III groups (30 cases each, 1:1 male-to-female ratio). Bone thickness at 27 points on the left palatal midline was measured using Dolphin software, with 1-way ANOVA and LSD for analysis (Ξ± = 0.05). For all skeletal classes, midpalatal bone thickness increased anterior-to-posterior (Class I: = 0.42; Class II: = 0.40; Class III: = 0.35, all P < .05), while lateral/paramedian regions showed the opposite ( = 0.68-0.82, P<.05). Safe zones (β₯6mm) for Class I/II included midpalatal middle/posterior, lateral, and paramedian anterior regions; Class III only had midpalatal posterior (7.59 1.36mm). Palatal safe zones vary by sagittal skeletal pattern, providing critical references for anchor screw placement. Our findings provide evidence-based safe zone maps to guide palatal anchor screw placement, so as to mitigate complications during orthodontic treatment. They also highlight the need to integrate AI-guided planning tools for enhanced accuracy, to inform good clinical practice.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Basic research