Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The thickness of alveolar bone at the maxillary canine and premolar teeth in normal occlusion

  • Jin, Seong-Ho (Department of Periodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Jun-Beom (Department of Periodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Namryang (Department of Periodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Seojin (Department of Periodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Kyung Jae (Department of Periodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Yoonji (Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Kook, Yoon-Ah (Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Ko, Youngkyung (Department of Periodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2012.07.23
  • Accepted : 2012.10.04
  • Published : 2012.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The main purpose of this study was to investigate bone thickness on the buccal and palatal aspects of the maxillary canine and premolars using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). The differences between left- and right-side measurements and between males and females were also analyzed. Methods: The sample consisted of 20 subjects (9 males and 11 females; mean age, $21.9{\pm}3.0$) selected from the normal occlusion sample data in the Department of Orthodontics, The Catholic University of Korea. The thickness of the buccal and palatal bone walls, perpendicular to the long axis of the root were evaluated at 3 mm and 5 mm apical to cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and at root apex. Results: At the canines and first premolars regions, mean buccal bone thickness of at 3 mm and 5 mm apical to CEJ were less than 2 mm. In contrast, at the second premolar region, mean buccal bone thickness at 3 mm and 5 mm apical from CEJ were greater than 2 mm. Frequency of thick bone wall (${\geq}2mm$) increased from the canine to the second premolar. Conclusions: This result should be considered before tooth extraction and planning of rehabilitation in the canine and premolar area of maxilla. Careful preoperative analysis with CBCT may be beneficial to assess local risk factors and to achieve high predictability of success in implant therapy.

Keywords

References

  1. Bhola M, Neely AL, Kolhatkar S. Immediate implant placement: clinical decisions, advantages, and disadvantages. J Prosthodont 2008;17:576-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2008.00359.x
  2. Attard NJ, Zarb GA. Immediate and early implant loading protocols: a literature review of clinical studies. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:242-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.04.015
  3. Werbitt MJ, Goldberg PV. The immediate implant: bone preservation and bone regeneration. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1992;12:206-17.
  4. Barzilay I. Immediate implants: their current status. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6:169-75.
  5. Froum SJ. Immediate placement of implants into extraction sockets: rationale, outcomes, technique. Alpha Omegan 2005;98:20-35.
  6. Covani U, Cornelini R, Barone A. Bucco-lingual bone remodeling around implants placed into immediate extraction sockets: a case series. J Periodontol 2003;74:268-73. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2003.74.2.268
  7. Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Hard-tissue alterations following immediate implant placement in extraction sites. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31:820-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00565.x
  8. Araujo MG, Sukekava F, Wennstrom JL, Lindhe J. Ridge alterations following implant placement in fresh extrac tion sockets: an experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32:645-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00726.x
  9. Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32:212-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00642.x
  10. Qahash M, Susin C, Polimeni G, Hall J, Wikesjo UM. Bone healing dynamics at buccal peri-implant sites. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:166-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01428.x
  11. Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 2: clinical applications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:1285-92. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1654
  12. Kaya S, Adiguzel O, Yavuz I, Tumen EC, Akkus Z. Cone-beam dental computerized tomography for evaluating changes of aging in the dimensions central superior incisor root canals. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011;16: e463-6.
  13. Howerton WB Jr, Mora MA. Advancements in digital imaging: what is new and on the horizon? J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139 Suppl:20S-24S. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0354
  14. Yilmaz HG, Tozum TF. Are gingival phenotype, residual ridge height, and membrane thickness critical for the perforation of maxillary sinus? J Periodontol 2012;83:420-5. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2011.110110
  15. 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;31:125-31.
  16. Januario AL, Duarte WR, Barriviera M, Mesti JC, Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimension of the facial bone wall in the anterior maxilla: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:1168-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02086.x
  17. 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; 83:187-97. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2011.110172
  18. Bernstein DP, Fink L, Handelsman L, Foote J, Lovejoy M, Wenzel K, et al. Initial reliability and validity of a new retrospective measure of child abuse and neglect. Am J Psychiatry 1994;151:1132-6. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.151.8.1132
  19. Kim Y, Park JU, Kook YA. Alveolar bone loss around incisors in surgical skeletal Class III patients. Angle Orthod 2009;79:676-82. https://doi.org/10.2319/070308-341.1
  20. Kook YA, Kim G, Kim Y. Comparison of alveolar bone loss around incisors in normal occlusion samples and surgical skeletal class III patients. Angle Orthod 2012;82:645-52. https://doi.org/10.2319/070111-424.1
  21. 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;5:119-28. https://doi.org/10.1902/annals.2000.5.1.119
  22. Cho YB, Moon SJ, Chung CH, Kim HJ. Resorption of labial bone in maxillary anterior implant. J Adv Prosthodont 2011; 3:85-9. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2011.3.2.85
  23. Funato A, Salama MA, Ishikawa T, Garber DA, Salama H. Timing, positioning, and sequential staging in esthetic implant therapy: a four-dimensional perspective. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2007;27:313-23.
  24. Salama H, Salama MA, Garber D, Adar P. The interproximal height of bone: a guidepost to predictable aesthetic strategies and soft tissue contours in anterior tooth replacement. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1998;10:1131-41.
  25. Gelb DA. Immediate implant surgery: three-year retrospective evaluation of 50 consecutive cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:388-99.
  26. Lazzara RJ. Immediate implant placement into extraction sites: surgical and restorative advantages. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1989;9:332-43.
  27. Prathibha Rani RM, Mahima VG, Patil K. Bucco-lingual dimension of teeth: an aid in sex determination. J Forensic Dent Sci 2009;1:88-92. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-2948.60380

Cited by

  1. Use of cone beam computed tomography in periodontology. vol.6, pp.5, 2012, https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v6.i5.139
  2. Topographic analysis of the mandibular symphysis in a normal occlusion population using cone-beam computed tomography vol.10, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2015.2842
  3. Stress distribution of posts on the endodontically treated teeth with and without bone height augmentation: A three-dimensional finite element analysis vol.18, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.157242
  4. Classification of periodontal biotypes with the use of CBCT. A cross-sectional study vol.20, pp.8, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1694-y
  5. Ridge Preservation in the Severly Destructed Alveolar Bone: A Report of Two Cases vol.20, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.12972/implantology.20160015
  6. Maxillary Cortical Bone Thickness in a South-Eastern Anatolian Population: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study vol.23, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.906229
  7. Facial Alveolar Bone Width at the First and Second Maxillary Premolars in Healthy Patients: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study vol.43, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-16-00195
  8. A novel classification of anterior alveolar arch forms and alveolar bone thickness: A cone-beam computed tomography study vol.48, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2018.48.3.191
  9. A Comparison between Primary and Secondary Flap Coverage in Ridge Preservation Procedures: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial vol.2019, pp.None, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7679319
  10. Analysis of Alveolar Bone Morphology of the Maxillary Central and Lateral Incisors with Normal Occlusion vol.55, pp.9, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina55090565
  11. Buccal bone thickness of maxillary anterior teeth: A systematic review and meta‐analysis vol.47, pp.11, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13347
  12. The dimension and morphology of alveolar bone at maxillary anterior teeth in periodontitis: a retrospective analysis—using CBCT vol.12, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41368-019-0071-0