Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science (구강회복응용과학지)

Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion (대한턱관절교합학회)
권호 표지
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
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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.

본 연구는 수평적, 수직적 안면 골격 유형에 따른 하악 전치부 치조골의 형태학적 차이를 알아보기 위하여 시행 하였다. 연구 재료 및 방법: 40명의 Cone-beam computed tomography (Cone-beam CT)를 선별하여, 4개 군으로 분류하였다. Cone-beam CT 자료를 이용하여 하악 전치부 치조골의 부피($mm^3$), 하악 4절치 치축 기준 시상단면의 단면적(총 단면적, 해면골 단면적: $mm^2$), 백악법랑경계(cemento-enamel junction: CEJ) 2 mm, 3 mm 아래 순, 설측 치조골 두께를 측정하였다. 통계분석은 GLM, Kruskal-Wallis test and Tukey HSD를 사용하였다. 결과: 측절치의 백악법랑경계 2 mm, 3 mm 하방 설측 치조골 두께가, Class I low angle군이 나머지 3군 보다 두꺼웠다 (P < 0.05). 하악 전치 치조골의 부피, 전체 치조골 및 해면골의 단면에서의 통계적으로 유의한 차이는 없었다. 결론: Class I low angle군은 Class II high angle군에 비해 하악 전치 치조골의 설측 부위가 더 두껍다.

Keywords

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. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  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. 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
  13. 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
  14. Bae KW, Ryu YK. A cephalometric study on the vertical and anteroposterior dysplasia of the craniofacial skeleton. Korean J Orthod 1988;18:175-88.
  15. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  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