
==== Front
Int J Dent
Int J Dent
ijd
International Journal of Dentistry
1687-8728
1687-8736
Wiley

10.1155/2024/6741187
Research Article
Evaluation of Palatal Thickness for the Placement of MARPE Device among a Cohort of Iraqi-Kurdish Population: A Retrospective CBCT Study
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9621-4094
Andraws Yalda Fedil dr-fedil@hotmail.com
1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5281-5186
Chawshli Omar Fawzi 2
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1343-3310
Al-Talabani Shaho Ziyad 2
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3229-6917
Ali Sarkawt Hamad 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1162-2713
Shihab Omed Ikram 3
1 The Department of Oral Diagnosis College of Dentistry Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq
2 The Department of Pedodontics Orthodontics and Preventive Dentistry College of Dentistry Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq
3 The Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery College of Dentistry Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq
Academic Editor: Andrea Scribante

2024
28 8 2024
2024 674118715 10 2023
17 6 2024
3 8 2024
Copyright © 2024 Fedil Andraws Yalda et al.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate and compare palatal thickness in adults for the placement of mini-implants for miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expansion (MARPE) appliances using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in a sample of Iraqi-Kurdish people.

Materials and Methods

CBCT scans from 68 Kurdish patients, aged between 18 and 30 years, were assessed retrospectively. Of these, 37 were males and 31 were females. The measurements were performed at 3 mm from the mid-palatal suture. T-zone was selected for the anterior points, at the level of the palatal cusps of 2nd premolars, and the posterior point at the level of mesio-palatal cusps of 1st molars bilaterally. Palatal thickness of males and females bilaterally, as well as anterior and posterior areas, were measured and compared. An independent t-test was applied for comparison for normally distributed data, and the Mann–Whitney test was utilized for nonnormally distributed data. Additionally, Bonferroni correction was implemented for p-value adjustment.

Results

The mean palatal thickness at the anterior area was 6.06 mm for males, 6.17 mm for females on the right side, 5.94 mm for males, and 5.99 mm for females on the left side. The mean palatal thickness at the posterior area was almost the same for both genders (4.40 mm for males and 4.44 mm for females) on the right side, 4.35 mm for males, and 4.54 mm for females on the left side. Statistically, no significant difference was recorded between males and females, as well as right and left sides in both anterior and posterior regions; however, a very highly statistically significant difference (p  < 0.001) was recorded when comparing total thickness, including both hard and soft tissue, between anterior and posterior regions.

Conclusions

CBCT proves a highly effective modality in assessing palatal thickness and suggesting ideal locations for orthodontic mini-screw placement. Our examination of palatal thickness in a sample of Iraqi-Kurdish individuals revealed no statistical difference between genders or sides, but significant variations were noted between anterior and posterior thicknesses. Comprehensive clinical and pre-expansion CBCT evaluations are crucial for precisely determining the optimal placement of MARPE devices in each patient, ensuring successful outcomes.
==== Body
pmc1. Introduction

Transverse maxillary deficiency is a relatively common orthodontic problem that can present in one of three ways: bilateral posterior crossbite with teeth crowding, unilateral posterior crossbite with mandibular shifting, and constriction without crossbite. It can cause asymmetrical facial growth or retrusive mandible, temporomandibular joint disorder, and oral breathing [1].

Maxillary expansion is a predictable way to treatment of maxillary constriction and moderate maxillary crowding [2]. E. H. Angell' first reported on the procedure of maxillary expansion in 1860, and since then, it has gone through periods of popularity and decline [2].

The correction of the transverse discrepancy of the maxilla can be achieved with conventional rapid palatal expansion (RPE) by means of opening the mid-palatal suture, which is usually conducted in growing ages, whereas in nongrowing patients, where the increasing age is considered a limitation to achieving this transverse separation [3].

As a consequence, surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion (SARME) was introduced to be used for mature patients by releasing the closed sutures resisting expansion force. It increases skeletal expansion efficiency and reduces the side effects, and it is necessary to adopt surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion (SARPE) instead [4]. However, SARME has higher biological and financial costs with most patients being reluctant to undergo surgical procedures [4].

Recently, fixed-type maxillary expansion appliances anchored to miniature implants have been developed as part of a technique known as miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expansion (MARPE), which effectively has emerged as an alternative to SARPE [3]. In fact, miniscrews conventionally employed to avoid unwanted tooth movements can be used to obtain skeletal anchorage, as their mechanical properties allow sufficient resistance to orthopedic loads [5] if oriented perpendicularly to cortical bone forces [6]. This (MARPE) technique is indicated in skeletally mature patients to open the mid-palatal suture aiming at maximizing the skeletal effects because direct expansion forces are applied to the basal bone [7]. The MARPE appliance aimed to maximize the achievable expansion without enhancing the undesired inclination of the posterior teeth and collateral periodontal effects, thus allowing for stable posttreatment results. The survival rate of palatal mini-implants was generally high [8]. Hyperdivergent individuals typically exhibit a greater thickness of palatal bone in comparison to other groups [9].

The introduction of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for use in the dental field in the late 1990s [10, 11, 12] and its proliferation over the last two decades can be considered a revolution in dental imaging [13]. Before the introduction of CBCT, “medical” computed tomography (CT) could be accessed, but with much higher radiation doses than those of traditional dental radiographs and CBCT [13]. Continuous development of system software for dental clinicians, in addition to the standard multiplanar reconstruction for orthogonal re-slicing (axial, coronal, and sagittal), adds to the potential diagnostic capabilities [13, 14]. Cross-sectional imaging modalities obviously permit more accurate localization of objects and remove superimpositions [15, 16].

A systematic review performed by De Vos et al. [17] showed that the clinical uses of CBCT included dento-alveolar and maxillofacial surgery, implantology, and specialized dentistry such as orthodontics [13]. CBCT is widely used by orthodontists in diagnosis, treatment planning, and evaluating treatment outcomes [18].

Various studies have attempted to evaluate the thickness of the palatal bone and its density to insert mini-implants. These investigations have been conducted on different populations and across various age groups [19, 20, 21, 22, 23]. In 2014, Nishii et al. [24] conducted a study to quantify palatal bone thickness in individuals from four distinct ethnic groups. Their findings revealed variations in palatal bone thickness across these ethnic groups, leading them to emphasize the need to consider ethnic diversity [24, 25].

In the literature, several MARPE designs [26, 27, 28] with different mini-implant lengths and insertion angles have been discussed, with reports emphasizing mainly the expansion results and lacking attention concerning how to conduct appropriate mini-implant selection with respect to the patient's anatomy. Thus, this study used CBCT images to evaluate and compare palatal thickness in adults at 3 mm from the mid-palatal suture for the placement of mini-implants for MARPE appliances.

2. Methods and Materials

This retrospective study is based on the assessment of CBCT scans obtained from the Department of Oral Diagnosis at the College of Dentistry—Hawler Medical University. These scans were justified and taken for different reasons following referral criteria.

The dental clinics at the College of Dentistry—Halwer Medical University operate as a public dental hospital. Patients receive notification that our clinic functions as a teaching facility. Their data may be utilized for research or teaching endeavors. Additionally, each department's case sheet includes a section, written in Kurdish—the local language—detailing these provisions.

For the selection of relevant CBCT datasets, the following inclusion criteria were adopted: participants aged between 18 and 30 years with no history of surgical treatment or craniofacial abnormalities, such as cleft lip and palate, bone disorders, or metabolic disorders. Images depicting the absence of maxillary first premolars or first molars, impacted canines, and supernumerary teeth were excluded.

The sample size was calculated using G∗Power (ver. 3.1.9.7) [29]. The power level has been set to 0.8 and the significance level to 5%. The results of the power calculation showed that a sample of 52 cases was necessary to obtain suitable data power. To exclude any risk of false-negative results, it was decided to increase the sample size to 68 cases, including 31 females and 37 males, from the 127 patient files that met the selection criteria.

2.1. CBCT Scanning

A Newtom Giano HR CBCT scanner (Quantitative Radiology/Cefla Dental Group/Imola BO/Italy) was used, operated with a full 360o rotation and exposure parameters controlled by SafeBeam™ technology (“AEC” Automatic Exposure Control). Different fields of view were used, according to the CBCT scan requests, starting from 6 x 6 cm up to 10 × 8 cm, using a voxel size of 0.150 mm.

The CBCT image datasets were exported from the acquisition computer with the native viewing software (NewTom NNT™ software/Quantitative Radiology/Cefla Dental Group/Imola BO/Italy) to a Dell laptop (Inspiron 17 7000 Series 2-in-1—7773, Dell Inc., TX, USA) 17.3-inch FHD, IPS Truelife LED-backlit touch display with a screen resolution of 1,920 × 1,080 pixels, luminance of 330 cd/m2, and luminance contrast ratio of 1,538 : 1. The same laptop PC has been used in previous studies by the first author [13, 30, 31]. These parameters fulfilled the requirements for monitors used for clinical CBCT viewing [32].

2.2. CBCT Assessments

All CBCT scans were assessed by a single examiner (F.A.Y) Specialist in Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology who has more than 10 years of experience using (NewTom NNT™ software/Quantitative Radiology/Cefla Dental Group/Imola BO/Italy), to perform the necessary measurements. All assessments were made on the same laptop PC described above.

Fifteen CBCT datasets were randomly selected and remeasured after 3 weeks by the same examiner to permit the calculation of intra-observer repeatability.

The palatal thickness is measured on the multiplanar option of NNT software (version 14.0.1) as follows:On the axial cross-section, a straight line was drawn anterio-posteriorly in T-zone, at the level connecting the palatal cusps of the 2nd premolar (distal to 3rd ruga area), which is the reference point for the anterior holes of the MARPE placement [33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39], so a series of multiple coronal sections produced at a setting of 1.0 mm slice thickness and 1.0 mm step interval between the slices (Figure 1).

The palatal thickness in image no. 1 and image no. 9 was measured as the distance between the anterior hole and posterior one of the MARPE device is 8.0 mm; thus, image no. 9 was at the level of mesio-palatal cusp of 1st molars bilaterally (Figure 2).

The right and left holes of MARPE are 6.0 mm apart, so two-line measurements were drawn at each level, 3.0 mm from the mid-palatal suture (Figures 1 and 2).

At the end of each line, i.e., 3.0 mm from the mid-palatal suture bilaterally, palatal thickness (hard and soft tissue) was measured as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.

The thickness of hard and soft tissue was defined as the distance between the upper edge of the palatal bone (floor of nasal cavity) and the lower edge of palatal soft tissue (intraoral mucosa).

In this study, the thickness of palatal hard tissue and palatal soft tissue were measured. The thickness of palatal hard tissue was defined as the distance between the upper and lower edges of palatal bone (from the floor of the nasal cavity to the edge of palatal soft tissue), while the thickness of palatal soft tissue was measured as the distance between the lower edge of palatal bone and the lower edge of palatal soft tissue.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

All measurements were entered into a spreadsheet file (Excel, Microsoft 2016, Redmond, California). The statistical analysis, which encompassed both descriptive statistics and inferential statistics, was conducted using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software (version 24.0; IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY). Intraexaminer reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The measurements exhibited a high level of reliability, as indicated by the ICC range of 0.76–0.89.

The normality of the data distribution was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. A comparative analysis was conducted on the data obtained from both male and female subjects. Additionally, a comparison was made between the data collected from the right and left sides, as well as between the anterior and posterior data using an Independent T-test when the data exhibited normal distribution in both groups. However, when the data in one or both groups did not follow a normal distribution, the comparison was conducted using the Mann–Whitney test. The significance levels were established at a threshold of p < 0.05; however, due to the fact that multiple comparisons were conducted, the Bonferroni correction was applied, resulting in the adjustment of the p-value to 0.016.

The null hypothesis stated that there is no difference in palatal thickness between males and females, between the right and left sides, as well as anterior and posterior regions.

2.4. Ethical Aspects

The study protocol was reviewed and approved by Hawler Medical University Research Ethics Committee number (HMU.D.97).

3. Results

Descriptive statistics were computed for each of the investigated variables, specifically soft tissue thickness, bone thickness, and total thickness. The dataset comprises many statistical measures, such as the mean, confidence interval (95%), standard deviation, median, maximum, and minimum. The findings are displayed in Tables 1, 2, and 3.

The study involved measuring the mean values of total palatal thickness (bone and soft tissue) for mini-screw insertion at the upper right premolar location. The results indicated that males had a mean value of 6.06 mm, while females had a mean value of 6.17 mm. Comparably, it was observed that the average thickness in the upper left premolar region was 5.94 mm for males and 5.99 mm for females. Furthermore, it was observed that the overall thickness in the upper right molar was around 4.44 mm for both males and females. Specifically, the thickness was roughly 4.35 mm in males and 4.54 mm in females in the upper left molar region.

In this study, inferential statistics were utilized to examine and contrast data related to individuals of both male and female genders. The findings of this research have been provided in Table 4, revealing that there were no statistically significant disparities identified between the two genders when the total thickness, bone thickness, and soft tissue thickness were compared.

The research employed inferential statistics to examine the data obtained from the right and left sides (total thickness, bone thickness, and soft tissue thickness), as outlined in Table 5. The conducted research did not produce any statistically significant disparities between the two factions.

The data clearly indicate that the thickness of both the soft tissue and the bone of the palate is higher in the premolar region (anterior) compared to the molar region (posterior), varying from 6.11 mm to 4.42 mm, respectively. This observed difference was shown to be statistically very highly significant, with a p-value of less than 0.001, and it was observed in both males and females.

4. Discussion

The widespread adoption of the maxillary skeletal expander and its high success rate in expanding the constricted maxilla, particularly in adult patients, has had a transformative impact on the field. As a result, many orthodontists have sought to incorporate this appliance into their clinical practice. However, it is important to note that the success of MARPE is highly dependent on the specific techniques employed and necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the anatomical structure.

The achievement of successful screw engagement necessitates the involvement of both cortical layers. Therefore, in order to determine the optimal screw site and appropriate screw type and size, it is imperative to evaluate the thickness of the bone and soft tissue. The utilization of CBCT has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of this device prior to its placement.

This study is the initial endeavor to establish anatomical recommendations for the insertion of MARPE in the city of Erbil/Iraq, based on the current body of information.

The highly recommended MARPE appliance, due to its efficiency and high success rate, is very technique-sensitive, and many factors need to be fulfilled for its successful performance, like a good background in the anatomy of the palate and the knowledge of cortical bone thickness in different patients to address the best sites of insertion and the adequate implant size and length. Taking these points into consideration increases the chance of implant stability and reduces the risk of trauma to adjacent important tissues during insertion [40, 41, 42].

SARPE is another possible treatment approach for adult patients with a narrow maxilla, using bone cuts to reduce the resistance, followed by employing a jackscrew to expand and separate the two sides of the maxilla [43]. Unfortunately, this treatment is often rejected because it is an invasive surgical procedure with risks and high costs for the patient [44].

Radiological diagnosis prior to the placement of these implants is very helpful in planning the appliance placement with reduced failure risks, especially the use of CBCT evaluation before the insertion of implants, which increases the safety and the success rate of MARPE appliances [45, 46].

CBCT research that guides skeletal outcomes depending on clinical dental and soft tissue landmarks such as tooth cusps or Ruga areas are very helpful as a guideline for the clinicians during palatal implant insertion [7, 47, 48]. Other studies that provide clinically invisible landmarks are not useful as a guideline for the clinicians to help them with the insertion of these implants [49, 50, 51]. The visualization quality of the bony structures in CBCT appears to be similar to that offered by CT. However, CBCT generates high-resolution isotropic volume data and, therefore, could offer benefits in evaluating the maxilla thanks to the use of a lower radiation dose [12, 36, 37]. Thus, CBCT is a powerful modality for assessing palatal thickness and suggesting the perfect site for placement of orthodontic mini-screws [38, 39].

The constriction of the maxillary vault hinders the correct positioning of the expansion screw. Because the palate is shaped like a V, moving the screw more posteriorly will offer more palatal width [52, 53]; furthermore, the areas where resistance occurs during maxillary expansion are the mid-palatal suture, zygomatic buttress bone, and pterygopalatine suture [54]. To achieve maximum skeletal expansion, the force vector needs to be directed via the center of resistance, which is situated in the zygomatic buttress bone [55].

Previous studies in other ethnic groups proposed the third Ruga area as an indirect clinical landmark, comparing them to interdental areas [8]. This clinical landmark, which corresponds to the third Ruga area, is a stable clinical landmark, which is also proposed by other previous studies [3, 7]. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that investigates the palatal bone thickness for the insertion of MARPE appliance palatal mini-implants. It depends on the specific clinical landmark during palatal implant insertion in the Kurdish population. Therefore, the area distally to the 3rd Ruga, “i.e., at 2nd premolar level,” was chosen, as this is the safest area of T-zone implant placement in the Para median area covering the area of 1st and 2nd premolars bilaterally [35].

Considering the result of the current study, no statically significant differences were revealed considering the palatal bone thickness between males and females nor regarding the palatal soft tissue thickness, which is in agreement with the results of Becker et al. [56], who also found no significant difference in the palatal bone thickness between males and females. In contrast, other studies disagree with the results of the current study in that there was a significant difference in the palatal bone thickness between male and female patients [39, 49, 57], and this may be related to the difference in the ethnic group that is involved in the current study compared with the previous studies with different ethnicity.

Palatal bone thickness showed nonsignificant variability between the study participants, which is in disagreement with previous studies [15]. The mean values of palatal bone thickness in the current study revealed little variations, specifically varying from 4.08 to 4.15 mm for the left and right anterior regions, respectively. It shows 2.84–3.01 for the left and right posterior region, respectively, as well These values give the clinicians in our region an indication of the implant length to be selected for patients of Kurdish ethnicity; in addition, the thickness of soft tissue varied approximately between 2.11 mm for the anterior region and 1.65 mm for the posterior region, suggesting a selection of a miniscrew's neck of 2 mm to be enough. The value obtained from our study varies noticeably from other studies, being much less compared with previous studies, and this may be related to the sample size selected or the difference in the selected ethnic group [15].

Several factors can contribute to differences in palatal thickness between the right and left sides, including bone anatomy, tooth position, and individual variations in oral anatomy. In the current study, although there were discrepancies between the right and left sides, yet these variances were not statistically meaningful.

The thickness of the palatal bone is a significant determinant in the success of opening the mid-palatal suture with MARPE. As the thickness increases, the success rate also increases [58, 59]. Longer miniscrews, which can penetrate the bicortical bone (palatal and nasal cortical bone of the maxilla), have been recommended for greater orthopedic effects and parallel expansion at the coronal aspect [7]. The use of a long miniscrew for the posterior anchorage of MARPE increases the stability of the miniscrew. Nonetheless, longer miniscrews can damage the nasal floor mucosa or cause discomfort to the patient. MARPE with longer miniscrews does not guarantee midpalatal suture separation success, as per the data of the present study indicates that palatal thickness in the studied sample is somehow thin. Taking into account palatal shallowness variations and the available length of the miniscrew in the regional market varying between 10 and 16 mm. As the level of bone support has a pivotal role in determining the stability of miniscrews and enhancing the likelihood of successful MARPE treatment.

Likewise, the long-term durability of palatal mini-implants depends on the amount of palatal mucosa [60, 61]. Extremely thick palatal mucosa might increase the risk of inflammation [60, 61]. Thus, to minimize inflammation and maximize implant stability, the ideal insertion site for mini-implants is a location with robust palatal bone and reduced thickness of the linked palatal soft tissue. The current study indicates that a palatal mucosa thickness of 2.0 mm is recommended for effective adaption of the miniscrew neck.

Consistent with previous researches in the field, the findings of this study indicate a notable disparity in cortical bone and soft tissue thicknesses between the anterior and posterior regions. Specifically, as the measurements progressed from the anterior to posterior region toward the molar cusps area, a reduction in thickness was observed [39, 49, 57].

In the current study, palatal depth and cortical bone thickness were evaluated by insertion lines perpendicular to the palatal curvature plane, and this is in accordance with many other authors who applied this method [62, 63]. Others used perpendicular insert lines to the occlusal plane or to the constructed palatal planes, and some used angular insert lines [3, 7, 40, 42, 45, 64]. These methodological differences between studies involved in the measurement of palatal cortical bone thickness make the comparison somewhat difficult. In addition to the individual variations, therefore, the authors suggest that thorough clinical and pre-expansion CBCT examinations are essential for accurately determining the appropriate placement of the MARPE device in every patient to increase the success rate of these appliances.

Finally, although the sample of the current study includes adults rather than children, the majority of patients who undergo orthodontic therapy are children and young age [37, 65], which are radiosensitive and susceptible to improper effects of ionizing radiation; therefore, CBCT assessment should always be individually assessed and justified [66, 67].

4.1. Study Limitation

The study was a retrospective and observational study, with data obtained exclusively from one governorate teaching center. However, it should be noted that individuals from various areas attended this dental facility.

The aforementioned cases were referred to the Department of Oral Diagnosis/Dental X-Ray Section from other departments. Case notes in the X-ray section do not contain sufficient data to categorize them as either high-angle or low-angle faces.

5. Conclusion

CBCT is an overpowering modality for measuring palatal thickness and suggesting the perfect site for placement of orthodontic mini-screws individually. Our study of the palatal thickness on a sample of Iraqi-Kurdish people showed statistically no difference in the data between male and female, as well as the right and the left sides; however, there were significant differences between anterior and posterior palatal thicknesses. Thorough clinical and pre-expansion CBCT examinations are essential for accurately determining the appropriate placement of the MARPE device in every patient to guarantee the success.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figure 1 Axial cross-section showing the anterior line at the level of palatal cusps of 2nd premolars. Coronal cross-section showing the measurements of palatal thickness at the level of palatal cusps of 2nd premolars. Maxillary right 2nd premolar (15), maxillary left 2nd premolar (25).

Figure 2 Axial cross-section showing the posterior line at the level of mesio-palatal cusp of 1st molars. Coronal cross-section showing the measurements of palatal thickness at the level of mesio-palatal cusp of 1st molars. Maxillary right 1st molar (16), maxillary left 1st molar (26).

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of cortical thickness outcome and values are reported in millimeters (mm).

Tooth no.	Sex	Mean (95% CI)	Standard deviation	Median	Minimum	Maximum	
Anterior area	
 Upper right premolar region	M	4.15 (3.7–4.5)	1.27	4.2	2	7	
F	4.24 (3.6–4.8)	1.64	4.2	1.2	7.8	
 Upper left premolar region	M	4.08 (3.65–4.52)	1.3	4	1.2	7.2	
F	4.19 (3.66–4.72)	1.44	4	1.5	7.4	
Posterior area	
 Upper right 1st molar region	M	3.01 (2.61–3.42)	1.21	2.8	1.3	6.2	
F	3.15 (2.58–3.72)	1.55	2.9	1	7.8	
 Upper left 1st molar region	M	2.84 (2.43–3.25)	1.23	2.6	0.9	6.3	
F	3.27 (2.7–3.84)	1.54	2.9	1.1	7.2	

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of mucosa thickness outcome and values are reported in millimeters (mm).

Tooth no.	Sex	Mean (95% CI)	Standard deviation	Median	Minimum	Maximum	
Anterior area	
 Upper right premolar region	M	2.11 (1.9–2.33)	0.64	2	1	4	
F	2.11 (1.84–2.38)	0.74	2	1.2	4.5	
 Upper left premolar region	M	2.11 (1.9–2.33)	0.64	2	1	4.3	
F	2.09 (1.8–2.38)	0.79	1.9	1	5.1	
Posterior area	
 Upper right 1st molar region	M	1.6 (1.47–1.73)	0.39	1.6	1	2.6	
F	1.56 (1.45–1.67)	0.3	1.5	1.1	2.1	
 Upper left 1st molar region	M	1.65 (1.51–1.79)	0.42	1.7	1	2.7	
F	1.54 (1.41–1.68)	0.37	1.4	1	2.4	

Table 3 Descriptive statistics of cortical bone thickness and mucosa thickness outcome and values are reported in millimeters (mm).

Tooth no.	Sex	Mean (95% CI)	Standard deviation	Median	Minimum	Maximum	
Anterior area	
 Upper right premolar region	M	6.06 (5.58–6.54)	1.44	6.1	3.9	9.1	
F	6.17 (5.7–6.64)	1.28	5.8	3.8	8.7	
 Upper left premolar region	M	5.94 (5.54–6.42)	1.44	5.9	2.7	8.4	
F	5.99 (5.52–6.46)	1.28	5.9	3.2	8.6	
Posterior area	
 Upper right 1st molar region	M	4.4 (4.02–4.79)	1.15	4.3	2.3	6.5	
F	4.44 (3.99–4.9)	1.23	4.3	2.6	7	
 Upper left 1st molar region	M	4.35 (4.01–4.7)	1.03	4.4	2.4	6.6	
F	4.54 (4.1–4.99)	1.21	4.5	2.6	6.8	

Table 4 Inferential statistics performed to detect any significant difference between males and females.

	Anterior area	Posterior area	
Right 2nd premolar area	Left 2nd premolar area	Right 1st molar area	Left 1st molar area	
Mucosa	
 Shapiro–Wilk test	
  Male	p=0.31	p=0.029	p=0.069	p=0.151	
  Female	p=0.007	p  < 0.001	p=0.115	p=0.031	
Comparison test	p=0.772( ∗∗)	p=0.5( ∗∗)	p=0.709( ∗)	p=0.319( ∗∗)	
Cortical bone	
 Shapiro–Wilk test	
  Male	p=0.65	p=0.433	p=0.007	p=0.001	
  Female	p=0.597	p=0.631	p=0.029	p=0.075	
Comparison test	p=0.756( ∗)	p=0.797( ∗)	p=0.956( ∗∗)	p=0.254( ∗∗)	
Total	
 Shapiro–Wilk test	
  Male	p=0.102	p=0.437	p=0.461	p=0.477	
  Female	p=0.271	p=0.818	p=0.129	p=0.19	
Comparison test	p=0.752( ∗)	p=0.875( ∗)	p=0.883( ∗)	p=0.498( ∗)	
 ∗T test (parametric data).  ∗∗Mann–Whitny U test (nonparametric data).

Table 5 Inferential statistics performed to detect any significant difference between the right and left sides in males and females.

	Mucosa	Cortical bone	Total	
2nd premolar area	1st molar area	2nd premolar area	1st molar area	2nd premolar area	1st molar area	
Male	
 Shapiro–Wilk test	
  Right	p=0.31	p=0.069	p=0.65	p=0.007	p=0.102	p=0.461	
  Left	p=0.029	p=0.151	p=0.433	p=0.001	p=0.437	p=0.477	
Comparison test	p=0.811( ∗∗)	p=0.589( ∗)	p=0.816( ∗)	p=0.482( ∗∗)	p=0.712( ∗)	p=0.858( ∗)	
Female	
 Shapiro–Wilk	
  Right	p=0.007	p=0.115	p=0.597	p=0.029	p=0.271	p=0.129	
  Left	p < 0.001	p=0.031	p=0.631	p=0.075	p=0.818	p=0.19	
Comparison test	p=0.751( ∗∗)	p=0.57( ∗∗)	p=0.883( ∗)	p=0.783( ∗∗)	p=0.588( ∗)	p=0.757( ∗)	
 ∗T test (parametric data).  ∗∗Mann–Whitney U test (nonparametric data).
==== Refs
1 Jia H. Zhuang L. Zhang N. Bian Y. Li S. Age-dependent effects of transverse maxillary deficiency treated by microimplant-assisted rapid palatal expansion: a prospective cone-beam computed tomography study American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2022 161 4 557 573 10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.10.029 34903419
2 Naveda R. dos Santos A. M. Seminario M. P. Miranda F. Janson G. Garib D. Midpalatal suture bone repair after miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expansion in adults Progress in Orthodontics 2022 23 1 10.1186/s40510-022-00431-6 35
3 Lee K.-J. Park Y.-C. Park J.-Y. Hwang W.-S. Miniscrew-assisted nonsurgical palatal expansion before orthognathic surgery for a patient with severe mandibular prognathism American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2010 137 6 830 839 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.10.065 2-s2.0-78651490839 20685540
4 Li N. Sun W. Li Q. Dong W. Martin D. Guo J. Skeletal effects of monocortical and bicortical mini-implant anchorage on maxillary expansion using cone-beam computed tomography in young adults American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2020 157 5 651 661 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.05.021 32354438
5 Sfondrini M. F. Gandini P. Alcozer R. Vallittu P. K. Scribante A. Failure load and stress analysis of orthodontic miniscrews with different transmucosal collar diameter Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 2018 87 132 137 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.07.032 2-s2.0-85050507123 30059839
6 Lee J. Kim J. Y. Choi Y. J. Kim K. H. Chung C. J. Effects of placement angle and direction of orthopedic force application on the stability of orthodontic miniscrews The Angle Orthodontist 2013 83 4 667 673 10.2319/090112-703.1 2-s2.0-84881076705 23241005
7 Carlson C. Sung J. McComb R. W. Machado A. W. Moon W. Microimplant-assisted rapid palatal expansion appliance to orthopedically correct transverse maxillary deficiency in an adult American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2016 149 5 716 728 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.04.043 2-s2.0-84969520066 27131254
8 Arqub S. A. Gandhi V. Mehta S. Palo L. Upadhyay M. Yadav S. Survival estimates and risk factors for failure of palatal and buccal mini-implants The Angle Orthodontist 2021 91 6 756 763 10.2319/090720-777.1 34003884
9 Patel B. De Rose J. Nash J. Variability associated with maxillary infrazygomatic crest and palatal bone width, height, and angulation in subjects with different vertical facial growth types: a retrospective cone-beam computed tomography study The Angle Orthodontist 2024 94 3 313 319 10.2319/062023-430.1 38195059
10 Arai Y. Tammisalo E. Iwai K. Hashimoto K. Shinoda K. Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 1999 28 4 245 248 10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600448 2-s2.0-0033156083 10455389
11 Mozzo P. Procacci C. Tacconi A. Martini P. T. Andreis I. A. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results European Radiology 1998 8 9 1558 1564 10.1007/s003300050586 2-s2.0-0032240404 9866761
12 Scarfe W. C. Farman Bds A. G. Cone beam computed tomography: a paradigm shift for clinical dentistry 2007
13 Yalda F. A. Aspects of dental and maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) 2019 The University of Manchester Ph.D. thesis
14 Vandenberghe B. Jacobs R. Bosmans H. Modern dental imaging: a review of the current technology and clinical applications in dental practice European Radiology 2010 20 11 2637 2655 10.1007/s00330-010-1836-1 2-s2.0-77957880821 20544352
15 Baumgaertel S. Palomo J. M. Palomo L. Hans M. G. Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2009 136 1 19 25 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.09.016 2-s2.0-67649395585 19577143
16 Hilgers M. L. Scarfe W. C. Scheetz J. P. Farman A. G. Accuracy of linear temporomandibular joint measurements with cone beam computed tomography and digital cephalometric radiography American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2005 128 6 803 811 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.034 2-s2.0-29144465753 16360924
17 De Vos W. Casselman J. Swennen G. R. J. Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2009 38 6 609 625 10.1016/j.ijom.2009.02.028 2-s2.0-67649397320 19464146
18 Nervina J. M. Cone beam computed tomography use in orthodontics Australian Dental Journal 2012 57 Suppl 1 95 102 22376101
19 Chen W. Zhang K. Liu D. Palatal bone thickness at the implantation area of maxillary skeletal expander in adult patients with skeletal class III malocclusion: a cone-beam computed tomography study BMC Oral Health 2021 21 1 10.1186/s12903-021-01489-0 144
20 Chhatwani S. Rose-Zierau V. Haddad B. Almuzian M. Kirschneck C. Danesh G. Three-dimensional quantitative assessment of palatal bone height for insertion of orthodontic implants— a retrospective CBCT study Head & Face Medicine 2019 15 1 10.1186/s13005-019-0193-9 2-s2.0-85063742573 9
21 Han S. Bayome M. Lee J. Lee Y.-J. Song H.-H. Kook Y.-A. Evaluation of palatal bone density in adults and adolescents for application of skeletal anchorage devices The Angle Orthodontist 2012 82 4 625 631 10.2319/071311-445.1 2-s2.0-84865212315 22077190
22 Moon S. H. Park S. H. Lim W. H. Chun Y. S. Palatal bone density in adult subjects: implications for mini-implant placement The Angle Orthodontist 2010 80 1 137 144 10.2319/011909-40.1 2-s2.0-70449378969 19852653
23 Yadav S. Sachs E. Vishwanath M. Gender and growth variation in palatal bone thickness and density for mini-implant placement Progress in Orthodontics 2018 19 1 10.1186/s40510-018-0241-1 2-s2.0-85056098234 43
24 Nishii Y. Sameshima G. T. Mah J. K. Enciso R. Takaki T. Sueishi K. Hard palate thickness for temporary anchorage devices placement: differences in sex and ethnicity Orthodontic Waves 2014 73 4 121 129 10.1016/j.odw.2014.08.001 2-s2.0-84927591981
25 Poon Y.-C. Chang H.-P. Tseng Y.-C. Palatal bone thickness and associated factors in adult miniscrew placements: a cone-beam computed tomography study The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences 2015 31 5 265 270 10.1016/j.kjms.2015.02.002 2-s2.0-84928703504 25910562
26 Bernhart T. Vollgruber A. Gahleitner A. Dörtbudak O. Haas R. Alternative to the median region of the palate for placement of an orthodontic implant Clinical Oral Implants Research 2000 11 6 595 601 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011006595.x 2-s2.0-0034567649 11168253
27 Kang S. Lee S.-J. Ahn S.-J. Heo M.-S. Kim T.-W. Bone thickness of the palate for orthodontic mini-implant anchorage in adults American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2007 131 4 S74 S81 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.09.029 2-s2.0-34247151074 17448390
28 Park H.-S. Lee Y.-J. Jeong S.-H. Kwon T.-G. Density of the alveolar and basal bones of the maxilla and the mandible American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2008 133 1 30 37 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.044 2-s2.0-37449024672 18174068
29 G∗Power software (version 3.1.9.7) Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf D, Germany http://www.gpower.hhu.de/
30 Andraws Yalda F. Clarkson R. J. Davies J. Rout P. G. J. Sengupta A. Horner K. Does anthropomorphic model design in ex vivo studies affect diagnostic accuracy for dental root fracture using CBCT? Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 2020 49 7 10.1259/dmfr.20200093 20200093
31 Andraws Yalda F. Theodorakou C. Clarkson R. J. Determination of a cone-beam CT low-dose protocol for root fracture diagnosis in non-endodontically treated anterior maxillary teeth Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 2022 51 2 10.1259/dmfr.20210138 20210138
32 HPA-CRCE-010 HPA Working Party on Dental Cone Beam CT Equipment. Guidance on the Safe Use of Dental Cone Beam CT (computed tomog- raphy) Equipment 2010 Health Protection Agency 30 31 Didcot, UK
33 Moon W. Wu K. W. MacGinnis M. The efficacy of maxillary protraction protocols with the micro-implant-assisted rapid palatal expander (MARPE) and the novel N2 mini-implant—a finite element study Progress in Orthodontics 2015 16 1 10.1186/s40510-015-0083-z 2-s2.0-84982867223 16
34 Paredes N. Colak O. Sfogliano L. Differential assessment of skeletal, alveolar, and dental components induced by microimplant-supported midfacial skeletal expander (MSE), utilizing novel angular measurements from the fulcrum Progress in Orthodontics 2020 21 1 10.1186/s40510-020-00320-w 18
35 Fayed M. M. S. Pazera P. Katsaros C. Optimal sites for orthodontic mini-implant placement assessed by cone beam computed tomography The Angle Orthodontist 2010 80 5 939 951 10.2319/121009-709.1 2-s2.0-77955612090 20578867
36 Pauwels R. Araki K. Siewerdsen J. H. Thongvigitmanee S. S. Technical aspects of dental CBCT: state of the art Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 2015 44 1 10.1259/dmfr.20140224 2-s2.0-84919754418 20140224
37 Scarfe W. C. Angelopoulos C. Maxillofacial Cone Beam Computed Tomography: Principles, Techniques and Clinical Applications 2018 Springer International Publishing
38 Bonangi R. Kamath G. Srivathsa H. S. Babshet M. Utility of CBCT for the measurement of palatal bone thickness Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2018 119 3 196 198 10.1016/j.jormas.2018.02.009 2-s2.0-85043401707 29486242
39 Sumer A. P. Caliskan A. Uzun C. Karoz T. B. Sumer M. Cankaya S. The evaluation of palatal bone thickness for implant insertion with cone beam computed tomography International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2016 45 2 216 220 10.1016/j.ijom.2015.09.012 2-s2.0-84951768529 26458537
40 Barbosa N. M. V. Castro A. C. Conti F. Capelozza-Filho L. Almeida-Pedrin R. R. Cardoso M. A. Reliability and reproducibility of the method of assessment of midpalatal suture maturation: a tomographic study The Angle Orthodontist 2018 89 1 71 77 10.2319/121317-859.1 2-s2.0-85060022463 30230376
41 Nojima L. I. Nojima M. Cunha A. C. D. Guss N. O. Sant’Anna E. F. Mini-implant selection protocol applied to MARPE Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics 2018 23 5 93 101 10.1590/2177-6709.23.5.093-101.sar 2-s2.0-85056548897 30427498
42 Poorsattar-Bejeh Mir A. Haghanifar S. Poorsattar-Bejeh Mir M. Rahmati-Kamel M. Individual scoring and mapping of hard and soft tissues of the anterior hard palate for orthodontic miniscrew insertion Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry 2017 8 1 10.1111/jicd.12186 2-s2.0-85041908916
43 de Oliveira C. B. Ayub P. Ledra I. M. Microimplant assisted rapid palatal expansion vs surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion for maxillary transverse discrepancy treatment American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2021 159 6 733 742 10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.03.024 33931257
44 Chamberland S. Proffit W. R. Short-term and long-term stability of surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion revisiteds American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2011 139 6 815 822.e1 21640889
45 Karagkiolidou A. Ludwig B. Pazera P. Gkantidis N. Pandis N. Katsaros C. Survival of palatal miniscrews used for orthodontic appliance anchorage: a retrospective cohort study American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2013 143 6 767 772 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.01.018 2-s2.0-84878515898 23726326
46 Wang M. Sun Y. Yu Y. Ding X. Evaluation of palatal bone thickness for insertion of orthodontic mini-implants in adults and adolescents The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 2017 28 6 1468 1471 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003906 2-s2.0-85028692935 28841595
47 Baumgaertel S. Quantitative investigation of palatal bone depth and cortical bone thickness for mini-implant placement in adults American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2009 136 1 104 108 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.020 2-s2.0-67649397394 19577156
48 Hourfar J. Kanavakis G. Bister D. Three dimensional anatomical exploration of the anterior hard palate at the level of the third ruga for the placement of mini-implants—a cone-beam CT study European Journal of Orthodontics 2015 37 6 589 95 10.1093/ejo/cju093 2-s2.0-84950114410 25564503
49 Gracco A. Lombardo L. Cozzani M. Siciliani G. Quantitative cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of palatal bone thickness for orthodontic miniscrew placement American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2008 134 3 361 369 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.01.027 2-s2.0-50549099840 18774082
50 Holm M. Jost-Brinkmann P.-G. Mah J. Bumann A. Bone thickness of the anterior palate for orthodontic miniscrews The Angle Orthodontist 2016 86 5 826 831 10.2319/091515-622.1 2-s2.0-84984678877 26998809
51 Nakahara K. Matsunaga S. Abe S. Evaluation of the palatal bone for placement of orthodontic mini-implants in Japanese adults CRANIO® 2014 30 1 72 79 10.1179/crn.2012.008 2-s2.0-84856738717
52 Lyu C. X. Yang L. Chen L. L. Yu F. Y. Lu H. P. Advance and review: miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expansion Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2019 54 11 778 782 31683387
53 Angelieri F. Franchi L. Cevidanes L. H. S. Cone beam computed tomography evaluation of midpalatal suture maturation in adults International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2017 46 12 1557 1561 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.06.021 2-s2.0-85023776406 28716474
54 Colak O. Paredes N. A. Elkenawy I. Tomographic assessment of palatal suture opening pattern and pterygopalatine suture disarticulation in the axial plane after midfacial skeletal expansion Progress in Orthodontics 2020 21 1 10.1186/s40510-020-00321-9 21
55 Cantarella D. Dominguez-Mompell R. Moschik C. Zygomaticomaxillary modifications in the horizontal plane induced by micro-implant-supported skeletal expander, analyzed with CBCT images Progress in Orthodontics 2018 19 1 10.1186/s40510-018-0240-2 2-s2.0-85055076264 41
56 Becker K. Unland J. Wilmes B. Tarraf N. E. Drescher D. Is there an ideal insertion angle and position for orthodontic mini-implants in the anterior palate? A CBCT study in humans American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2019 156 3 345 354 10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.09.019 2-s2.0-85071415634 31474264
57 Negrisoli S. Angelieri F. Gonçalves J. R. da Silva H. D. P. Maltagliati L. Raphaelli Nahás-Scocate A. C. Assessment of the bone thickness of the palate on cone-beam computed tomography for placement of miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expansion appliances American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2022 161 6 849 857 10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.01.037 35151529
58 Meirelles C. M. Ferreira R. M. Suzuki H. Analysis of factors associated with the success of microimplant-assisted rapid palatal expansion American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2023 164 1 67 77 10.1016/j.ajodo.2022.10.029 36868909
59 Jesus A. S. Oliveira C. B. Murata W. H. Suzuki S. S. Santos-Pinto A. D. Would midpalatal suture characteristics help to predict the success rate of miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expansion? American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2021 160 3 363 373 10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.04.035 34175160
60 Vu T. Bayome M. Kook Y.-A. Han S. H. Evaluation of the palatal soft tissue thickness by cone-beam computed tomography The Korean Journal of Orthodontics 2012 42 6 291 296 10.4041/kjod.2012.42.6.291 2-s2.0-84871892667 23323243
61 Cha B.-K. Lee Y.-H. Lee N.-K. Choi D.-S. Baek S.-H. Soft tissue thickness for placement of an orthodontic miniscrew using an ultrasonic device The Angle Orthodontist 2008 78 3 403 408 10.2319/051607-237.1 2-s2.0-43449126552 18416626
62 Algharbi M. Bazargani F. Dimberg L. Do different maxillary expansion appliances influence the outcomes of the treatment? European Journal of Orthodontics 2018 40 1 97 106 10.1093/ejo/cjx035 2-s2.0-85054968652 28486682
63 Brunetto D. P. Sant’Anna E. F. Machado A. W. Moon W. Non-surgical treatment of transverse deficiency in adults using microimplant-assisted rapid palatal expansion (MARPE) Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics 2017 22 1 110 125 10.1590/2177-6709.22.1.110-125.sar 2-s2.0-85018691670 28444019
64 de Rezende Barbosa G. L. Ramírez-Sotelo L. R. Távora D. M. Almeida S. M. Comparison of median and paramedian regions for planning palatal mini-implants: a study in vivo using cone beam computed tomography International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2014 43 10 1265 1268 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.04.010 2-s2.0-84908090666 24846198
65 Applegate K. E. Thomas K. Pediatric CT—the challenge of dose records Pediatric Radiology 2011 41 523 527 21847734
66 Oenning A. C. Jacobs R. Pauwels R. Stratis A. Hedesiu M. Salmon B. Cone-beam CT in paediatric dentistry: DIMITRA project position statement Pediatric Radiology 2018 48 3 308 316 10.1007/s00247-017-4012-9 2-s2.0-85034090537 29143199
67 Oenning A. C. Jacobs R. Salmon B. ALADAIP, beyond ALARA and towards personalized optimization for paediatric cone-beam CT International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2021 31 5 676 678 10.1111/ipd.12797 33844356
