Imaging Science in Dentistry

  • 제52권2호
  • /
  • Pages.197-207
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2233-7822(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-7830(eISSN)
대한영상치의학회 (Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Associations among the anterior maxillary dental arch form, alveolar bone thickness, and the sagittal root position of the maxillary central incisors in relation to immediate implant placement: A cone-beam computed tomography analysis

  • Somvasoontra, Suttikiat (Esthetic Restorative and Implant Dentistry Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University) ;
  • Tharanon, Wichit (Dental Innovation Foundation under Royal Patronage) ;
  • Serichetaphongse, Pravej (Esthetic Restorative and Implant Dentistry Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University) ;
  • Pimkhaokham, Atiphan (Esthetic Restorative and Implant Dentistry Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University)
  • 투고 : 2021.09.28
  • 심사 : 2021.12.29
  • 발행 : 2022.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: This study evaluated the associations of the dental arch form, age-sex groups, and sagittal root position (SRP) with alveolar bone thickness of the maxillary central incisors using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Materials and Methods: CBCT images of 280 patients were categorized based on the dental arch form and age-sex groups. From these patients, 560 sagittal CBCT images of the maxillary central incisors were examined to measure the labial and palatal bone thickness at the apex level and the palatal bone at the mid-root level, according to the SRP classification. The chi-square test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and multiple linear regression were used for statistical analyses. Results: Significant differences were found in alveolar bone thickness depending on the arch form and SRP at the apex level. The square dental arch form and class I SRP showed the highest bone thickness at both levels of the palatal aspect. The taper dental arch form and class II SRP presented the highest bone thickness at the apex level of the labial aspect. No association was found between the dental arch form and SRP. Elderly women showed a significant association with thinner alveolar bone. Age-sex group, the dental arch form, and SRP had significant associations with alveolar bone thickness at the apex level. Conclusion: The patient's age-sex group, dental arch form, and SRP were associated with alveolar bone thickness around the maxillary central incisors with varying magnitudes. Therefore, clinicians should take these factors into account when planning immediate implant placement.

키워드

과제정보

The authors thank Assistant Professor Dr. Soranun Chantarangsu for her excellent recommendations and help regarding statistical analysis.

참고문헌

  1. Testori T, Weinstein T, Scutella F, Wang HL, Zucchelli G. Implant placement in the esthetic area: criteria for positioning single and multiple implants. Periodontol 2000 2018; 77: 176-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12211
  2. 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 Suppl: 43-61.
  3. Morton D, Chen ST, Martin WC, Levine RA, Buser D. Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding optimizing esthetic outcomes in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 Suppl: 216-20.
  4. Grunder U, Gracis S, Capelli M. Influence of the 3-D boneto-implant relationship on esthetics. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2005; 25: 113-9.
  5. Kan JY, Roe P, Rungcharassaeng K, Patel RD, Waki T, Lozada JL, et al. Classification of sagittal root position in relation to the anterior maxillary osseous housing for immediate implant placement: a cone beam computed tomography study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26: 873-6.
  6. Do TA, Shen YW, Fuh LJ, Huang HL. Clinical assessment of the palatal alveolar bone thickness and its correlation with the buccolingual angulation of maxillary incisors for immediate implant placement. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019; 21: 1080-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12835
  7. Soumya P, Chappidi V, Koppolu P, Pathakota K. Evaluation of facial and palatal alveolar bone thickness and sagittal root position of maxillary anterior teeth on cone beam computerized tomograms. Niger J Clin Pract 2021; 24: 329-34. https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_318_20
  8. Schimmel M, Muller F, Suter V, Buser D. Implants for elderly patients. Periodontol 2000 2017; 73: 228-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12166
  9. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World population ageing 2019 (ST/ESA/ SER.A/444) [Internet]. New York: United Nations; 2020 [cited 2021 Sep 28]. Available from https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/WorldPopulationAgeing2019-Report.pdf.
  10. Moy PK, Medina D, Shetty V, Aghaloo TL. Dental implant failure rates and associated risk factors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005; 20: 569-77.
  11. Gakonyo J, Mohamedali AJ, Mungure EK. Cone beam computed tomography assessment of the buccal bone thickness in anterior maxillary teeth: relevance to immediate implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018; 33: 880-7. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6274
  12. Zhang CY, DeBaz C, Bhandal G, Alli F, Buencamino Francisco MC, Thacker HL, et al. Buccal bone thickness in the esthetic zone of postmenopausal women: a CBCT analysis. Implant Dent 2016; 25: 478-84. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000405
  13. Bidez MW, Misch CE. Clinical biomechanics in implant dentistry. In: Misch CE. Dental implant prosthetics. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2005. p. 95-106.
  14. Zarei M, Jahangirnezhad M, Yousefimanesh H, Robati M, Robati H. A comparative study on the stress distribution around dental implants in three arch form models for replacing six implants using finite element analysis. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2018; 22: 127-32. https://doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_141_17
  15. Bulyalert A, Pimkhaokham A. A novel classification of anterior alveolar arch forms and alveolar bone thickness: a conebeam computed tomography study. Imaging Sci Dent 2018; 48: 191-9. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2018.48.3.191
  16. Ansari T, Mascarenhas R, Husain A. The relationship of various arch forms and cortical bone thickness. J Dent (Tehran) 2011; 8: 7-11.
  17. Misch CE. Maxillary arch implant considerations: fixes and overdenture prosthesis. In: Misch CE. Contemporary implant dentistry. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2008. p. 367-88.
  18. Al Shammout RW, Al Jabrah O, Aburumman K, Alhabahbah AM, Almanaseer W. The effect of various classes of malocclusions on the maxillary arch forms and dimensions in Jordanian population. Adv Dent Oral Health 2016; 2: 17-23.
  19. Al-Zubair NM. Determinant factors of Yemeni maxillary arch dimensions. Saudi Dent J 2015; 27: 50-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2014.08.005
  20. 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
  21. Alam MK, Shahid F, Purmal K, Ahmad B, Khamis MF. Bolton tooth size ratio and its relation with arch widths, arch length and arch perimeter: a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) study. Acta Odontol Scand 2014; 72: 1047-53. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2014.946967
  22. Tajik I, Mushtaq N, Khan M. Arch forms among different angle classifications - a study. Pak Oral Dent J 2011; 31: 92-5.
  23. Tarazona B, Llamas JM, Cibrian R, Gandia JL, Paredes V. A comparison between dental measurements taken from CBCT models and those taken from a digital method. Eur J Orthod 2013; 35: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr005
  24. El-Zanaty HM, El-Beialy AR, Abou El-Ezz AM, Attia KH, El-Bialy AR, Mostafa YA. Three-dimensional dental measurements: an alternative to plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 259-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.04.030
  25. Shafique A, Saleem T, Chattha MR. Arch form analyses: a comparison of two different methods. Pak Oral Dent J 2011; 31: 347-51.
  26. Palacci P, Nowzari H. Soft tissue enhancement around dental implants. Periodontol 2000 2008; 47: 113-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.2008.00256.x
  27. 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. https://doi.org/10.1902/annals.2000.5.1.119
  28. Khoury J, Ghosn N, Mokbel N, Naaman N. Buccal bone thickness overlying maxillary anterior teeth: a clinical and radiographic prospective human study. Implant Dent 2016; 25: 525-31. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000427
  29. Lopez-Jarana P, Diaz-Castro CM, Falcao A, Falcao C, Rios-Santos J, Herrero-Climent M. Thickness of the buccal bone wall and root angulation in the maxilla and mandible: an approach to cone beam computed tomography. BMC Oral Health 2018; 18: 194. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0652-x
  30. Tian YL, Liu F, Sun HJ, Lv P, Cao YM, Yu M, et al. Alveolar bone thickness around maxillary central incisors of different inclination assessed with cone-beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod 2015; 45: 245-52. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2015.45.5.245
  31. Wang HM, Shen JW, Yu MF, Chen XY, Jiang QH, He FM. Analysis of facial bone wall dimensions and sagittal root position in the maxillary esthetic zone: a retrospective study using cone beam computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29: 1123-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3348
  32. Chung SH, Park YS, Chung SH, Shon WJ. Determination of implant position for immediate implant placement in maxillary central incisors using palatal soft tissue landmarks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29: 627-33. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2907
  33. Benjasupattananan S, Sirikururat P. Relationship between facial alveolar bone thickness and root position of maxillary anterior teeth using cone beam computed tomography. J Dent Assoc Thai 2018; 68: 38-47.
  34. Xu D, Wang Z, Sun L, Lin Z, Wan L, Li Y, et al. Classification of the root position of the maxillary central incisors and its clinical significance in immediate implant placement. Implant Dent 2016; 25: 520-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000438
  35. Petaibunlue S, Serichetaphongse P, Pimkhaokham A. Influence of the anterior arch shape and root position on root angulation in the maxillary esthetic area. Imaging Sci Dent 2019; 49: 123-30. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2019.49.2.123
  36. Lombardo L, Coppola P, Siciliani G. Comparison of dental and alveolar arch forms between different ethnic groups. Int Orthod 2015; 13: 462-88.
  37. Kim JH, Lee JG, Han DH, Kim HJ. Morphometric analysis of the anterior region of the maxillary bone for immediate implant placement using micro-CT. Clin Anat 2011; 24: 462-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.21101
  38. Gomez-Polo M, Ortega R, Gomez-Polo C, Martin C, Celemin A, Del Rio J. Does length, diameter, or bone quality affect primary and secondary stability in self-tapping dental implants? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 74: 1344-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2016.03.011
  39. Linjawi A. Predictive factors affecting the maxillary alveolar bone thickness: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2020; 12: 359-65. https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S268201
  40. Mukhia N, Birur NP, Shubhasini AR, Shubha G, Keerthi G. Dimensional measurement accuracy of 3-dimensional models from cone beam computed tomography using different voxel sizes. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2021; 132: 361-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2021.05.009