DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Morphological difference of symphysis according to various skeletal types using cone-beam computed tomography

안면골격 유형에 따른 하악 전치 치조골의 형태 차이: Cone-beam CT를 이용한 정량적 평가

  • Kwon, Hyun-Jin (Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Chun, Youn-Sic (Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Kim, Min-Ji (Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Ewha Womans University)
  • 권현진 (이화여자대학교 임상치의학대학원) ;
  • 전윤식 (이화여자대학교 임상치의학대학원) ;
  • 김민지 (이화여자대학교 임상치의학대학원)
  • Received : 2014.06.23
  • Accepted : 2014.08.15
  • Published : 2014.09.30

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate differences between the morphology of the mandibular symphysis and four facial skeletal types. Materials and Methods: 40 cone-beam computed tomographies were selected and classified in to 4 groups according to their vertical and anterior-posterior skeletal patterns. The bone volume ($mm^3$) of the symphysis, the cross sectional area corresponding to the 4 mandibular incisors' axis: the cross sectional area of total bone ($mm^2$), the area of the cancellous bone ($mm^2$) and the thickness (mm) of labial and lingual alveolar bone at 2 mm, 3 mm under the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) were measured. General linear model (GLM), Kruskal-Wallis test and Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) test were subsequently used for statistical analysis. Results: The lingual cortical bone thickness of the lateral incisors at 2, 3 mm under CEJ was greater in the Class I low angle group than the other 3 groups (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the volume of the mandibular incisor bony support, cross-sectional area of total bone and cancellous bone at the mandibular incisor' axis. Conclusion: Patients in Class I, low angle group have a thicker lingual mandibular symphysis than Class I, high angle patients.

References

  1. 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.
  2. Edwards JG. A study of the anterior portion of the palate as it relates to orthodontic therapy. Am J Orthod 1976;69:249-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(76)90075-0
  3. Wehrbein H, Bauer W, Diedrich P. Mandibular incisors, alveolar bone, and symphysis after orthodontic treatment. A retrospective study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;110:239-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(96)80006-0
  4. 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, 886-9.
  5. Lupi JE, Handelman CS, Sadowsky C. Prevalence and severity of apical root resorption and alveolar bone loss in orthodontically treated adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:28-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70160-9
  6. Nahm KY, Kang JH, Moon SC, Choi YS, Kook YA, Kim SH, Huang J. Alveolar bone loss around incisors in Class I bidentoalveolar protrusion patients: a retrospective three-dimensional cone beam CT study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012;41:481-8. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/30845402
  7. Wainwright WM. Faciolingual tooth movement: its influence on the root and cortical plate. Am J Orthod 1973;64:278-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(73)90021-3
  8. Adams GL, Gansky SA, Miller AJ, Harrell WE Jr, Hatcher DC. Comparison between traditional 2-dimensional cephalometry and a 3-dimensional approach on human dry skulls. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:397-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.03.023
  9. Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Martini PT, Andreis IA. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 1998;8:1558-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300050586
  10. Baumrind S, Carlson S, Beers A, Curry S, Norris K, Boyd RL. Using three-dimensional imaging to assess treatment outcomes in orthodontics: a progress report from the University of the Pacific. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003;6 Suppl 1:132-42. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0544.2003.246.x
  11. Little RM. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod 1975;68:554-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(75)90086-X
  12. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  13. Kim JH, Gansukh O, Amarsaikhan B, Lee SJ, Kim TW. Comparison of cephalometric norms between Mongolian and Korean adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced profiles. Korean J Orthod 2011;41:42-50. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2011.41.1.42
  14. Erbay EF, Caniklioglu CM. Soft tissue profile in Anatolian Turkish adults: Part II. Comparison of different soft tissue analyses in the evaluation of beauty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:65-72. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.119573
  15. Bae KW, Ryu YK. A cephalometric study on the vertical and anteroposterior dysplasia of the craniofacial skeleton. Korean J Orthod 1988;18:175-88.
  16. Swasty D, Lee J, Huang JC, Maki K, Gansky SA, Hatcher D, Miller AJ. Cross-sectional human mandibular morphology as assessed in vivo by conebeam computed tomography in patients with different vertical facial dimensions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:e377-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.10.039
  17. Choe HY, Park W, Jeon JK, Kim YH, Shon BW. Differences in mandibular anterior alveolar bone thickness according to age in a normal skeletal group. Korean J Orthod 2007;37:220-30.
  18. Swasty D, Lee JS, Huang JC, Maki K, Gansky SA, Hatcher D, Miller AJ. Anthropometric analysis of the human mandibular cortical bone as assessed by cone-beam computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:491-500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.089
  19. Ruf S, Hansen K, Pancherz H. Does orthodontic proclination of lower incisors in children and adolescents cause gingival recession? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:100-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70244-6
  20. Djeu G, Hayes C, Zawaideh S. Correlation between mandibular central incisor proclination and gingival recession during fixed appliance therapy. Angle Orthod 2002;72:238-45.
  21. Artun J, Krogstad O. Periodontal status of mandibular incisors following excessive proclination. A study in adults with surgically treated mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;91:225-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(87)90450-1
  22. Sarikaya S, Haydar B, Ciger S, Ariyurek M. Changes in alveolar bone thickness due to retraction of anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:15-26. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.119804
  23. Dorfman HS. Mucogingival changes resulting from mandibular incisor tooth movement. Am J Orthod 1978;74:286-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(78)90204-X
  24. Wehrbein H, Fuhrmann RA, Diedrich PR. Periodontal conditions after facial root tipping and palatal root torque of incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:455-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70067-2
  25. Schwartz-Dabney CL, Dechow PC. Variations in cortical material properties throughout the human dentate mandible. Am J Phys Anthropol 2003;120:252-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.10121
  26. 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.
  27. Mah J, Hatcher D. Three-dimensional craniofacial imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:308-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.06.024