Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of anterior maxillary and mandibular alveolar parameters in African American and Caucasian women: A retrospective pilot study

  • Received : 2020.12.08
  • Accepted : 2021.01.13
  • Published : 2021.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The primary objective of this study was to analyze the thickness and height of alveolar bone around the maxillary and mandibular incisors. Additionally, this study aimed to compare bone parameters between Caucasian (CC) and African American (AA) female patients. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective pilot study, 50 female subjects(25 CC and 25 AA) were included. The inclusion criteria were AA or CC women between the ages of 18 and 50 with a normo-divergent facial pattern and Angle's class I, end-on class II, or mild class III malocclusion. The distance from the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) to the buccal and lingual alveolar crest; the alveolar ridge thickness at the mid-root and apex; and the buccal and lingual bone thickness at 3, 6, and 9mm from the CEJ were measured. Results: No significant difference was found (P>0.05) in the cortical bone thickness at 3mm, 6mm, or 9mm from the alveolar crest between CC and AA populations for most measurements. A significant difference in bone thickness was found (P<0.05) for the lingual surface of the central incisor, with maxillary bone thickness found to be higher than mandibular bone thickness. The measurements of lingual thickness were larger than those of buccal thickness for both races. Conclusion: There were no differences in maxillomandibular anterior alveolar bone measurements between normo-divergent adult AA and CC women, except for a few parameters at varying locations. However, future studies can be planned based the current pilot study data, which may provide valuable information.

Keywords

References

  1. Solem RC, Marasco R, Guiterrez-Pulido L, Nielsen I, Kim SH, Nelson G. Three-dimensional soft-tissue and hard-tissue changes in the treatment of bimaxillary protrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 144: 218-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.03.018
  2. Ogundipe OK, Otuyemi OD. Surgical and orthodontic treatment methods in patients with bimaxillary protrusion - a systematic review. J West Afr Coll Surg 2017; 7: 31-46.
  3. Bills DA, Handelman CS, BeGole EA. Bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion: traits and orthodontic correction. Angle Orthod 2005; 75: 333-9.
  4. Araujo TM, Caldas LD. Tooth extractions in orthodontics: first or second premolars? Dental Press J Orthod 2019; 24: 88-98. https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.24.3.088-098.bbo
  5. Leonardi R, Annuziata A, Licciardello V, Barbato E. Soft tissue changes following the extraction of premolars in nongrowing patients with bimaxillary protrusion. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2010; 80: 211-6. https://doi.org/10.2319/010709-16.1
  6. 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
  7. Lee S, Hwang S, Jang W, Choi YJ, Chung CJ, Kim KH. Assessment of lower incisor alveolar bone width using cone-beam computed tomography images in skeletal Class III adults of different vertical patterns. Korean J Orthod 2018; 48: 349-56. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2018.48.6.349
  8. 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
  9. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02086.x
  10. Nowzari H, Molayem S, Chiu CH, Rich SK. Cone beam computed tomographic measurement of maxillary central incisors to determine prevalence of facial alveolar bone width ≥2 mm. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012; 14: 595-602. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00287.x
  11. Goshtasbi N, Hazzard J, Mehrkhodavandi N, Al-Qawasmi R. The heritability of alveolar bone thickness in siblings seeking orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020; 157: 803-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.06.019
  12. Skieller V, Bjork A, Linde-Hansen T. Prediction of mandibular growth rotation evaluated from a longitudinal implant sample. Am J Orthod 1984; 86: 359-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(84)90028-9
  13. Garlock DT, Buschang PH, Araujo EA, Behrents RG, Kim KB. Evaluation of marginal alveolar bone in the anterior mandible with pretreatment and posttreatment computed tomography in nonextraction patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 149: 192-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.07.034
  14. Thilander B. Infrabony pockets and reduced alveolar bone height in relation to orthodontic therapy. Semin Orthod 1996; 2: 55-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1073-8746(96)80040-5
  15. Morad G, Behnia H, Motamedian SR, Shahab S, Gholamin P, Khosraviani K, et al. Thickness of labial alveolar bone overlying healthy maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth. J Craniofac Surg 2014; 25: 1985-91. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000001022
  16. Han JY, Jung GU. Labial and lingual/palatal bone thickness of maxillary and mandibular anteriors in human cadavers in Koreans. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2011; 41: 60-6. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2011.41.2.60
  17. 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 2011; 83: 187-97. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2011.110172
  18. Molen AD. Considerations in the use of cone-beam computed tomography for buccal bone measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137 (4 Suppl): S130-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.01.015
  19. Patcas R, Muller L, Ullrich O, Peltomaki T. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography at different resolutions assessed on the bony covering of the mandibular anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 141: 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.034
  20. Gungor E, Dogan MS. Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography voxel density and linear distance measurement at different voxel sizes: a study on sheep head cadaver. J Dent Sci 2017; 12: 145-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2016.11.004
  21. Baumgaertel S, Palomo JM, Palomo L, Hans MG. Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.09.016
  22. Srebrzynska-Witek A, Koszowski R, Rozylo-Kalinowska I. Relationship between anterior mandibular bone thickness and the angulation of incisors and canines - a CBCT study. Clin Oral Investig 2018; 22: 1567-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2255-3