The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Alveolar bone thickness and lower incisor position in skeletal Class I and Class II malocclusions assessed with cone-beam computed tomography

  • Baysal, Asli (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Izmir Katip Celebi University) ;
  • Ucar, Faruk Izzet (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University) ;
  • Buyuk, Suleyman Kutalmis (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University) ;
  • Ozer, Torun (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Adnan Menderes University) ;
  • Uysal, Tancan (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Izmir Katip Celebi University)
  • Received : 2012.08.13
  • Accepted : 2012.10.24
  • Published : 2013.06.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate lower incisor position and bony support between patients with Class II average- and high-angle malocclusions and compare with the patients presenting Class I malocclusions. Methods: CBCT records of 79 patients were divided into 2 groups according to sagittal jaw relationships: Class I and II. Each group was further divided into average- and high-angle subgroups. Six angular and 6 linear measurements were performed. Independent samples t-test, Kruskal-Wallis, and Dunn post-hoc tests were performed for statistical comparisons. Results: Labial alveolar bone thickness was significantly higher in Class I group compared to Class II group (p = 0.003). Lingual alveolar bone angle (p = 0.004), lower incisor protrusion (p = 0.007) and proclination (p = 0.046) were greatest in Class II average-angle patients. Spongious bone was thinner (p = 0.016) and root apex was closer to the labial cortex in high-angle subgroups when compared to the Class II average-angle subgroup (p = 0.004). Conclusions: Mandibular anterior bony support and lower incisor position were different between average- and high-angle Class II patients. Clinicians should be aware that the range of lower incisor movement in high-angle Class II patients is limited compared to average- angle Class II patients.

Keywords

References

  1. Mihalik CA. Long term follow-up of Class II adults treated with orthodontic camouflage: a comparison with orthognathic surgery outcomes [thesis]. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2002.
  2. Proffit WR, Fields HW. Contemporary orthodontics. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2000. p. 273.
  3. Yared KF, Zenobio EG, Pacheco W. Periodontal status of mandibular central incisors after orthodontic proclination in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:6.e1-8.
  4. Ten Hoeve A, Mulie RM. The effect of antero-postero incisor repositioning on the palatal cortex as studied with laminagraphy. J Clin Orthod 1976;10: 804-22.
  5. Handelman CS. The anterior alveolus: its importance in limiting orthodontic treatment and its influence on the occurrence of iatrogenic sequelae. Angle Orthod 1996;66:95-109.
  6. Mulie RM, Hoeve AT. The limitations of tooth movement within the symphysis, studied with laminagraphy and standardized occlusal films. J Clin Orthod 1976;10:882-93.
  7. Gracco A, Luca L, Bongiorno MC, Siciliani G. Computed tomography evaluation of mandibular incisor bony support in untreated patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:179-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.09.030
  8. Tsunori M, Mashita M, Kasai K. Relationship between facial types and tooth and bone characteristics of the mandible obtained by CT scanning. Angle Orthod 1998;68:557-62.
  9. Kohakura S, Kasai K, Ohno I, Kanazawa E. Relationship between maxillofacial morphology and morphological characteristics of vertical sections of the mandible obtained by CT scanning. J Nihon Univ Sch Dent 1997;39:71-7. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd1959.39.71
  10. Swasty D, Lee J, Huang JC, Maki K, Gansky SA, Hatcher D, et al. Cross-sectional human mandibular morphology as assessed in vivo by cone-beam computed tomography in patients with different vertical facial dimensions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139(4 Suppl):e377-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.10.039
  11. Huang J, Bumann A, Mah J. Three-dimensional radiographic analysis in orthodontics. J Clin Orthod 2005;39:421-8.
  12. 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;77:766-72. https://doi.org/10.2319/072906-309
  13. Fuhrmann R. Three-dimensional interpretation of periodontal lesions and remodeling during orthodontic treatment. Part III. J Orofac Orthop 1996; 57:224-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02190235
  14. Fuhrmann RA, Wehrbein H, Langen HJ, Diedrich PR. Assessment of the dentate alveolar process with high resolution computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1995;24:50-4. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.24.1.8593909
  15. Vandenberghe B, Jacobs R, Yang J. Detection of periodontal bone loss using digital intraoral and cone beam computed tomography images: an in vitro assessment of bony and/or infrabony defects. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008;37:252-60. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/57711133
  16. Davidian EJ. Use of a computer model to study the force distribution on the root of the maxillary central incisor. Am J Orthod 1971;59:581-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(71)90004-2
  17. Christiansen RL, Burstone CJ. Centers of rotation within the periodontal space. Am J Orthod 1969; 55:353-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(69)90143-2
  18. Ellis E 3rd, McNamara JA Jr. Cephalometric evaluation of incisor position. Angle Orthod 1986;56: 324-44.
  19. Garib DG, Yatabe MS, Ozawa TO, Filho OGS. Alveolar bone morphology under the perspective of the computed tomography: Defining the biological limits of tooth movement. Dental Press J Orthod 2010;15:192-205. https://doi.org/10.1590/S2176-94512010000500023
  20. Schudy FF. The rotation of the mandible resulting from growth: its implications in orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 1965;35:36-50.
  21. Bjork A. Variations in the growth pattern of the human mandible: longitudinal radiographic study by the implant method. J Dent Res 1963;42:400-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345630420014701
  22. Nielsen IL. Vertical malocclusions: etiology, development, diagnosis and some aspects of treatment. Angle Orthod 1991;61:247-60.
  23. Nauert K, Berg R. Evaluation of labio-lingual bony support of lower incisors in orthodontically untreated adults with the help of computed tomography. J Orofac Orthop 1999;60:321-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01301245
  24. Misch KA, Yi ES, Sarment DP. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for periodontal defect measurements. J Periodontol 2006;77:1261-6. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2006.050367

Cited by

  1. The Thickness of Alveolar Bone at the Mandibular Canine and Premolar Teeth in Normal Occlusion vol.25, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000000767
  2. Relationship between mentalis muscle hyperactivity and mandibular symphysis morphology in skeletal Class I and II patients vol.73, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.odw.2014.09.006
  3. CBCT in orthodontics: assessment of treatment outcomes and indications for its use vol.44, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140282
  4. Evaluation of Bone Thickness and Density in the Lower Incisors’ Region in Adults with Different Types of Skeletal Malocclusion using Cone-beam Computed Tomography vol.16, pp.8, 2013, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1733
  5. No association between gingival labial recession and facial type vol.38, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv042
  6. Relationship between anterior mandibular bone thickness and the angulation of incisors and canines—a CBCT study vol.22, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2255-3
  7. Correlation of Mandibular Incisor Inclination to Marginal Bone Levels and Cortical Bone Thickness in Different Skeletal Patterns: A Retrospective, Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study vol.9, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1551
  8. Morphological analysis of the alveolar bone of the anterior teeth in severe high-angle skeletal Class II and Class III malocclusions assessed with cone-beam computed tomography vol.14, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210461
  9. Relationship between alveolar bone thickness, tooth root morphology, and sagittal skeletal pattern : A cone beam computed tomography study vol.80, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-019-00175-9
  10. A Cone-beam Computed Tomography Evaluation of Mandibular Anterior Alveolar Bone Dimensions in Class I and Class II Skeletal Patterns vol.12, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1831
  11. Dentofacial characteristics and age in association with incisor bony support in adult female patients with bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion vol.24, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12484
  12. Mandibular incisor inclination and gingival recession after treatment with the Jasper Jumper: a 10-year follow-up vol.22, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-021-00389-x