Evaluation of interdental distance of natural teeth with cone-beam computerized tomography

콘빔형 전산화단층영상을 이용한 자연치 치간거리의 평가

  • Oh, Sang-Chun (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Kong, Hyun-Jun (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Lee, Wan (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University)
  • 오상천 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 공현준 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 이완 (원광대학교 치과대학 구강악안면방사선학교실)
  • Received : 2017.09.07
  • Accepted : 2017.11.20
  • Published : 2017.12.30


Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the interdental distances of anterior, premolar, and molar teeth at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) and 2 mm below the CEJ in healthy natural dentition with cone-beam computerized tomography (cone-beam CT) in order to provide valuable data for ideal implant positioning relative to mesiodistal bone dimensions. Materials and Methods: Two hundred patients who visited Dental Hospital, Wonkwang University, who had natural dentition with healthy interdental papillae, and who underwent cone-beam CT were selected. The cone-beam CT images were converted to digital imaging and communication in medicine (DICOM) files and reconstructed in three-dimensional images. To standardize the cone-beam CT images, head reorientation was performed. All of the measurements were determined on the reconstructed panoramic images by three professionally trained dentists. Results: At the CEJ, the mean maxillary interdental distances were 1.84 mm (anterior teeth), 2.07 mm (premolar), and 2.08 mm (molar), and the mean mandibular interproximal distances were 1.55 mm (anterior teeth), 2.20 mm (premolar), and 2.36 mm (molar). At 2mm below the CEJ, the mean maxillary interdental distances were 2.19 mm (anterior teeth), 2.51 mm (premolar), and 2.60 mm (molar), and the mean mandibular interproximal distances were 1.86 mm (anterior teeth), 2.53 mm (premolar), and 3.01 mm (molar). Conclusion: The interdental distances in the natural dentition were larger at the posterior teeth than at the anterior teeth and also at 2 mm below the CEJ level compared with at the CEJ level. The distances between mandibular incisors were the narrowest and the distances between mandibular molars were the widest in the entire dentition.


Supported by : Wonkwang University


  1. Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS. The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol 2000;71:546-9.
  2. Gastaldo JF, Cury PR, Sendyk WR. Effect of the vertical and horizontal distances between adjacent implants and between a tooth and an implant on the incidence of interproximal papilla. J Periodontol 2004;75:1242-6.
  3. Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:43-61.
  4. Grunder U, Gracis S, Capelli M. Influence of the 3-D bone-to-implant relationship on esthetics. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2005;25:113-9.
  5. Cho HS, Jang HS, Kim DK, Park JC, Kim HJ, Choi SH, Kim CK, Kim BO. The effects of interproximal distance between roots on the existence of interdental papillae according to the distance from the contact point to the alveolar crest. J Periodontol 2006;77:1651-7.
  6. Degidi M, Novaes AB Jr, Nardi D, Piattelli A. Outcome analysis of immediately placed, immediately restored implants in the esthetic area: the clinical relevance of different interimplant distances. J Periodontol 2008;79:1056-61.
  7. Teughels W, Merheb J, Quirynen M. Critical horizontal dimensions of interproximal and buccal bone around implants for optimal aesthetic outcomes: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:134-45.
  8. Black GV. Descriptive anatomy of the human teeth. 5th ed. Philadelphia; S. S. White Dental Manufacturing; 1902. p. 1-94.
  9. Wheeler RC. Complete crown form and the periodontium. J Prosthet Dent 1961;11:722-34.
  10. Renner RP. An introduction to dental anatomy and esthetics. 1st ed. Chicago; Quintessence; 1985. p. 49-86.
  11. Magne P, Belser U. Bonded porcelain restorations in the anterior dentition: a biomimetic approach. 1st ed. Chicago; Quintessence; 2002. p. 50-3.
  12. Ganguly R, Ruprecht A, Vincent S, Hellstein J, Timmons S, Qian F. Accuracy of linear measurement in the Galileos cone-beam computed tomography under simulated clinical conditions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011;40:299-305.
  13. Hekmatian E, Jafari-Pozve N, Khorrami L. The effect of voxel size on the measurement of mandibular thickness in cone-beam computed tomography. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2014;11:544-8.
  14. Lee KJ, Joo E, Kim KD, Lee JS, Park YC, Yu HS. Computed tomographic analysis of tooth-bearing alveolar bone for orthodontic miniscrew placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:486-94.