Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2012.42.5.173

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)
Publication Information
Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science / v.42, no.5, 2012 , pp. 173-178 More about this Journal
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
Alveolar bone loss; Bicuspid; Cone-beam computed tomography; Cuspid; Dental implants;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Kim Y, Park JU, Kook YA. Alveolar bone loss around incisors in surgical skeletal Class III patients. Angle Orthod 2009;79:676-82.   DOI
2 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.   DOI
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;5:119-28.   DOI
4 Cho YB, Moon SJ, Chung CH, Kim HJ. Resorption of labial bone in maxillary anterior implant. J Adv Prosthodont 2011; 3:85-9.   DOI
5 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.
6 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.
7 Gelb DA. Immediate implant surgery: three-year retrospective evaluation of 50 consecutive cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:388-99.
8 Lazzara RJ. Immediate implant placement into extraction sites: surgical and restorative advantages. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1989;9:332-43.
9 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.   DOI
10 Attard NJ, Zarb GA. Immediate and early implant loading protocols: a literature review of clinical studies. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:242-58.   DOI
11 Werbitt MJ, Goldberg PV. The immediate implant: bone preservation and bone regeneration. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1992;12:206-17.
12 Barzilay I. Immediate implants: their current status. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6:169-75.
13 Froum SJ. Immediate placement of implants into extraction sockets: rationale, outcomes, technique. Alpha Omegan 2005;98:20-35.
14 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.   DOI
15 Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Hard-tissue alterations following immediate implant placement in extraction sites. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31:820-8.   DOI
16 Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 2: clinical applications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:1285-92.   DOI
17 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.   DOI
18 Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32:212-8.   DOI
19 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.   DOI
20 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.
21 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.   DOI
22 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.   DOI
23 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.
24 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.   DOI
25 Bhola M, Neely AL, Kolhatkar S. Immediate implant placement: clinical decisions, advantages, and disadvantages. J Prosthodont 2008;17:576-81.   DOI
26 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.   DOI
27 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.   DOI