Variability associated with mandibular ramus area thickness and depth in subjects with different growth patterns, gender, and growth status

Published:November 18, 2021DOI:


      • Males had significantly greater ramus thickness than females.
      • Ramus thickness decreased significantly from the occlusal plane (OP) to 10 mm above OP.
      • Ramus depth increased from OP to 10 mm above OP.
      • Hyperdivergent facial type showed reduced ramus depth.
      • Five mm above OP was considered the optimal insertion site for miniscrews.


      The purpose of this study was to quantitatively evaluate the ramus bone parameters (ramus thickness and ramus depth) for miniscrew placement. An additional aim was to compare and contrast the ramus bone parameters in growing and nongrowing male and female subjects with hyperdivergent, normodivergent, hypodivergent facial types.


      Cone-beam computed tomography scans of 690 subjects were evaluated. They were classified in terms of growth status, gender, and facial type. Ramus thickness was measured as the distance from the outer (buccal) to the inner (lingual) aspects of the mandibular ramus. Ramus depth was measured as the distance from the anterior border of the ramus to the inferior alveolar nerve canal. The measurements for ramus thickness and ramus depth were performed at 3 different levels bilaterally: (1) occlusal plane (OP), (2) 5 mm above the occlusal plane (5OP), and (3) 10 mm above the occlusal plane (10OP).


      Males showed a significantly higher ramus thickness than females (P <0.05). Ramus thickness decreased significantly (P <0.05) as we moved superior from the level of OP to 5OP and 10OP in all 3 facial types in both females (growing and nongrowing) and males (growing and nongrowing). Growing females and growing males had significantly higher ramus thickness than nongrowing females and nongrowing males, respectively. Ramus depth increased as we moved higher from the OP to 10OP. Hyperdivergent facial type showed a significantly reduced ramus depth compared with hypodivergent and normodivergent facial type in growing and nongrowing males and females at all 3 locations, namely OP, 5OP, and 10OP (P <0.05).


      Because of adequate ramus depth and ramus thickness, 5OP was considered the optimal insertion site for the placement of miniscrews. Patients with a hyperdivergent facial type showed significantly reduced ramus depth than hypodivergent and normodivergent facial types. Ramus thickness in males was significantly higher than in females in all facial types.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment


        • Magnusson C.
        • Kjellberg H.
        Impaction and retention of second molars: diagnosis, treatment and outcome. A retrospective follow-up study.
        Angle Orthod. 2009; 79: 422-427
        • Motamedi M.H.
        • Shafeie H.A.
        Technique to manage simultaneously impacted mandibular second and third molars in adolescent patients.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007; 103: 464-466
        • Sawicka M.
        • Racka-Pilszak B.
        • Rosnowska-Mazurkiewicz A.
        Uprighting partially impacted permanent second molars.
        Angle Orthod. 2007; 77: 148-154
        • Suter V.G.A.
        • Rivola M.
        • Schriber M.
        • Leung Y.Y.
        • Bornstein M.M.
        Risk factors for root resorption of second molars associated with impacted mandibular third molars.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 48: 801-809
        • Kurol J.
        Impacted and ankylosed teeth: why, when, and how to intervene.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 129: S86-S90
        • Ferrazzini G.
        Uprighting of a deeply impacted mandibular second molar.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989; 96: 168-171
        • Jacobs S.G.
        The uprighting of tilted molar teeth and the intrusion of over-erupted posterior teeth.
        Aust Orthod J. 1986; 9: 329-334
        • Tuncay O.C.
        • Biggerstaff R.H.
        • Cutcliffe J.C.
        • Berkowitz J.
        Molar uprighting with T-loop springs.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 1980; 100: 863-866
        • Shellhart W.C.
        • Oesterle L.J.
        Uprighting molars without extrusion.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 1999; 130: 381-385
        • Fu P.S.
        • Wang J.C.
        • Wu Y.M.
        • Huang T.K.
        • Chen W.C.
        • Tseng Y.C.
        • et al.
        Impacted mandibular second molars.
        Angle Orthod. 2012; 82: 670-675
        • Roberts W.E.
        • Nelson C.L.
        • Goodacre C.J.
        Rigid implant anchorage to close a mandibular first molar extraction site.
        J Clin Orthod. 1994; 28: 693-704
        • Cheng S.J.
        • Tseng I.Y.
        • Lee J.J.
        • Kok S.H.
        A prospective study of the risk factors associated with failure of mini-implants used for orthodontic anchorage.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19: 100-106
        • Miyawaki S.
        • Koyama I.
        • Inoue M.
        • Mishima K.
        • Sugahara T.
        • Takano-Yamamoto T.
        Factors associated with the stability of titanium screws placed in the posterior region for orthodontic anchorage.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124: 373-378
        • Chang C.
        • Liu S.S.
        • Roberts W.E.
        Primary failure rate for 1680 extra-alveolar mandibular buccal shelf mini-screws placed in movable mucosa or attached gingiva.
        Angle Orthod. 2015; 85: 905-910
        • Chang C.H.
        • Lin J.S.
        • Eugene Roberts W.E.
        Ramus screws: the ultimate solution for lower impacted molars.
        Semin Orthod. 2018; 24: 135-154
        • Yadav S.
        • Sachs E.
        • Vishwanath M.
        • Knecht K.
        • Upadhyay M.
        • Nanda R.
        • et al.
        Gender and growth variation in palatal bone thickness and density for mini-implant placement.
        Prog Orthod. 2018; 19: 43
        • Mehta S.
        • Dresner R.
        • Gandhi V.
        • Chen P.J.
        • Allareddy V.
        • Kuo C.L.
        • et al.
        Effect of positional errors on the accuracy of cervical vertebrae maturation assessment using CBCT and lateral cephalograms.
        J World Fed Orthod. 2020; 9: 146-154
        • Juodzbalys G.
        • Wang H.L.
        Identification of the mandibular vital structures: practical clinical applications of anatomy and radiological examination methods.
        J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2010; 1: e1
        • Juodzbalys G.
        • Wang H.L.
        • Sabalys G.
        Anatomy of mandibular vital structures. Part I: mandibular canal and inferior alveolar neurovascular bundle in relation with dental implantology.
        J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2010; 1: e2
        • Worthington P.
        Injury to the inferior alveolar nerve during implant placement: a formula for protection of the patient and clinician.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19: 731-734
        • Feuerstein D.
        • Costa-Mendes L.
        • Esclassan R.
        • Marty M.
        • Vaysse F.
        • Noirrit E.
        The mandibular plane: a stable reference to localize the mandibular foramen, even during growth.
        Oral Radiol. 2020; 36: 69-79
        • Shukla R.H.
        • Tiku A.
        Correlation of mandibular foramen to occlusal plane as a clinical guide for inferior alveolar nerve block in children: a digital panoramic radiographic study.
        Contemp Clin Dent. 2018; 9: 372-375
        • Adibi S.
        • Zhang W.
        • Servos T.
        • O’Neill P.N.
        Cone beam computed tomography in dentistry: what dental educators and learners should know.
        J Dent Educ. 2012; 76: 1437-1442
        • Mao W.
        • Gardner S.J.
        • Snyder K.C.
        • Wen N.W.
        • Zhong H.
        • Li H.
        • et al.
        On the improvement of CBCT image quality for soft tissue-based SRS localization.
        J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018; 19: 177-184
        • Giudice A.L.
        • Rustico L.
        • Longo M.
        • Oteri G.
        • Papadopoulos M.A.
        • Nucera R.
        Complications reported with the use of orthodontic miniscrews: a systematic review.
        Korean J Orthod. 2021; 51: 199-216
        • Humphrey L.T.
        • Dean M.C.
        • Stringer C.B.
        Morphological variation in great ape and modern human mandibles.
        J Anat. 1999; 195: 491-513
        • Saini V.
        • Srivastava R.
        • Rai R.K.
        • Shamal S.N.
        • Singh T.B.
        • Tripathi S.K.
        Mandibular ramus: an indicator for sex in fragmentary mandible.
        J Forensic Sci. 2011; 56: S13-S16
        • Martin B.
        Aging and strength of bone as a structural material.
        Calcif Tissue Int. 1993; 53 (discussion S39-40): S34-S39
        • Jonasson G.
        • Rythén M.
        Alveolar bone loss in osteoporosis: a loaded and cellular affair?.
        Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2016; 8: 95-103
        • Proffit W.R.
        • Fields H.W.
        • Sarver D.M.
        Contemporary Orthodontics.
        Mosby Elsevier, St Louis2007