The Association between Skeletal Protrusion and Labiolingual Inclination of Teeth with Anterior Alveolar Bone Thickness by Computed Beam Computed Tomography Images
Document Type : مقالههای پژوهشی
Authors
1 Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
2 دندانپزشک، دانشکدهی دندانپزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی تبریز، تبریز، ایران
3 Resident of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
10.48305/v0i0.1861
Abstract
Introduction: Evaluation of alveolar bone thickness is crucial for proper implant placement and support and aesthetics of soft tissue around implant restorations. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between skeletal protrusion of jaw and labiolingual inclination of teeth with maxillary and mandibular anterior alveolar bone thickness using computed beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Materials & Methods: In this descriptive-analytical study, cone beam computed tomography images were obtained from 100 patients referred to the radiology department of Tabriz Dental School from 2013-2015 before implant insertion. Maxillary and mandibular protrusion was determined by measuring SNA (Sella-nasion-A point) and SNB (Sella-nasion-B point) angles and labiolingual inclination of maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth was determined by measuring U1-NA (Upper 1-Nasion A point) and L1-NB (Lower1-Nasion B point) angles. Then, thickness of buccal bone was measured at three levels: 3 mm below the CEJ (A), the middle part of the root (B) and the apex (C). Data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and Pearson’s correlation coefficient and p value < 0.05 will be considered statistically significant.
Results: Mean thickness of bone was higher at level C than other two levels and lower at level A than others. There is no statistically significant relation between mean maxillary bone thickness and SNA (p value > 0.05) except for B region on canine (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.305 and p value < 0.05). There is no statistically significant relation between the mean maxillary bone thickness and U1-NA. There is no statistically significant relation between mean mandibular bone thickness and SNB and L1-NB. (p value > 0.05).
Conclusion: There was no statistically significant relation between maxillary and mandibular protrusion and labiolingual inclination of upper and lower anterior teeth with alveolar bone thickness.
Key words: Tooth, Alveolar bone, Thickness, Cone beam computed tomography.
Materials & Methods: In this descriptive-analytical study, cone beam computed tomography images were obtained from 100 patients referred to the radiology department of Tabriz Dental School from 2013-2015 before implant insertion. Maxillary and mandibular protrusion was determined by measuring SNA (Sella-nasion-A point) and SNB (Sella-nasion-B point) angles and labiolingual inclination of maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth was determined by measuring U1-NA (Upper 1-Nasion A point) and L1-NB (Lower1-Nasion B point) angles. Then, thickness of buccal bone was measured at three levels: 3 mm below the CEJ (A), the middle part of the root (B) and the apex (C). Data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and Pearson’s correlation coefficient and p value < 0.05 will be considered statistically significant.
Results: Mean thickness of bone was higher at level C than other two levels and lower at level A than others. There is no statistically significant relation between mean maxillary bone thickness and SNA (p value > 0.05) except for B region on canine (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.305 and p value < 0.05). There is no statistically significant relation between the mean maxillary bone thickness and U1-NA. There is no statistically significant relation between mean mandibular bone thickness and SNB and L1-NB. (p value > 0.05).
Conclusion: There was no statistically significant relation between maxillary and mandibular protrusion and labiolingual inclination of upper and lower anterior teeth with alveolar bone thickness.
Key words: Tooth, Alveolar bone, Thickness, Cone beam computed tomography.
1. Evans CD, Chen ST. Esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placements. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19(1): 73-80.
2. Jemt T, Ahlberg G, Henriksson K, Bondevik O. Changes of anterior clinical crown height in patients provided with single-implant restorations after more than 15 years of follow-up. Int J Prosthodont 2006; 19(5): 455-61.
3. Spray JR, Black CG, Morris HF, Ochi S. The Influence of bone thickness on facial marginal bone response: Stage 1 placement through stage 2 uncovering. Ann Periodontol 2000; 5(1): 119-28.
4. Bayati S, Yoosefimanesh H, Mohagheghi A, Ghaemi Sh. Evaluation of facial alveolar bone dimension of maxillary anterior teeth: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Investigation. Jundishapur Sci Med J 2016; 14(6): 661-8.
5. Qahash M, Susin C, Polimeni G, Hall J, Wikesjö UM. Bone healing dynamics at buccal peri-implant sites. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19(2): 166-72.
6. Braut V, Bornstein MM, Belser U, Buser D. Thickness of the anterior maxillary facial bone wall-a retrospective radiographic study using cone beam computed tomography. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2011; 31(2): 125-31.
7. Nowzari H, Molayem S, Chiu CH, Rich SK. Cone beam computed tomographic measurement of maxillary central incisors to determine prevalence of facial alveolar bone width ≥2 mm. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012; 14(4): 595-602.
8. Ghassemian M, Nowzari H, Lajolo C, Verdugo F, Pirronti T, D'Addona A. The thickness of facial alveolar bone overlying healthy maxillary anterior teeth. J Periodontol 2012; 83(2): 187-97.
9. Januario AL, Duarte WR, Barriviera M, Mesti JC, Araújo MG, Lindhe J. Dimension of the facial bone wall in the anterior maxilla: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22(10): 1168-71.
10. Shen JW, He FM, Jiang QH, Shan HQ. Measurement of facial bone wall thickness of maxillary anterior teeth and premolars on cone beam computed tomography images. Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban 2012; 41(3): 234-8. [In Chinese].
11. Yamada C, Kitai N, Kakimoto N, Murakami S, Furukawa S, Takada K. Spatial relationships between the mandibular central incisor and associated alveolar bone in adults with mandibular prognathism. Angle Orthod 2007; 77(5): 766-72.
12. Sangcharearn Y, Ho C. Effect of incisor angulation on overjet and overbite in class II camouflage treatment. A typodont study. Angle Orthod 2007; 77(6): 1011-8.
13. Gracco A, Lombardo L, Mancuso G, Gravina V, Siciliani G. Upper incisor position and bony support in untreated patients as seen on CBCT. Angle Orthod 2009; 79(4): 692-702.
14. Yu Q, Pan XG, Ji GP, Shen G. The association between lower incisal inclination and morphology of the supporting alveolar bone--a cone-beam CT study. Int J Oral Sci 2009; 1(4): 217-23.
15. Zhou Z, Chen W, Shen M, Sun C, Li J, Chen N. Cone beam computed tomographic analyses of alveolar bone anatomy at the maxillary anterior region in Chinese adults. J Biomed Res 2014; 28(6): 498-505.
16. Walker GF, Kowalski CJ. On the use of the SNA and SNB angles in cephalometric analyses. Am J Orthod 1973; 64(5): 517-23.
17. Jin SH, Park JB, Kim N, Park S, Kim KJ, Kim Y, et al. The thickness of alveolar bone at the maxillary canine and premolar teeth in normal occlusion. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2012; 42(5): 173-8.
18. Sarikaya S, Haydar B, Ciğer S, Ariyürek M. Changes in alveolar bone thickness due to retraction of anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 122(1): 15-26.
)