World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 3 ( May-June, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

A Cone-beam Computed Tomography Evaluation of Mandibular Anterior Alveolar Bone Dimensions in Class I and Class II Skeletal Patterns

Saranya Sreedhar, Nivedita Sahoo, MS Rami Reddy, Niharika Pal, Kavuda Nagarjuna Prasad, Piyush Gupta

Keywords : Alveolar bone, Cone-beam computed tomography, Skeletal patterns

Citation Information :

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1831

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-06-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim and objective: The study aims to compare the alveolar bone thickness in the lower incisors area in skeletal class I average growing adults with two different growth patterns of class II adults using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging technique. Materials and methods: The CBCT images of 20 class II and 10 class I average growth pattern patients were examined. Class II patients were subdivided into high- and low-angle groups of 10 patients each. The alveolar bone thickness of mandibular incisors in the buccal and lingual region was measured at the level of the alveolar crest and 3, 6, and 9 mm from the alveolar crest. Results: Buccal and lingual alveolar bone thickness in class II high- and low-angle patients was not significantly different at all levels except at 3 and 9 mm apical levels where lingual bone shows more thickness than buccal. Class II high-angle group showed thinner alveolar bone than low-angle and class I average groups, in most areas. Conclusion: Skeletal class II subjects with hyperdivergent growth patterns showed thinner mandibular alveolar bone in most areas compared with average/low-angle subjects. In class I average growing patients, the lingual alveolar bone is thicker in all sites. In class II high-angle patients, most sites exhibit thicker lingual bone thickness. In class II low-angle cases, all sites have a greater buccal bone thickness. Clinical significance: The anatomic limit set by the alveolar cortical bone should be considered during treatment planning during the sagittal correction, retraction of teeth, and miniscrew insertion. It is important to consider these boundaries as a limit to reposition teeth. Considering the anatomy of the alveolus is one of the keys to minimize unfavorable sequelae.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Reitan K. Clinical and histologic observations on tooth movement during and after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1967;53(10):721–745. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(67)90118-2.
  2. Tsunori M, Mashita M, Kasay K. Relationship between facial types and tooth and bone characteristics of the mandible obtained by CT scanning. Angle Orthod 1998;68:557–562.
  3. Gracco A, Luca L, Bongiorno MC, et al. Computed tomography evaluation of mandibular incisor bony support in untreated patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138(2):179–187. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.09.030.
  4. Handelman CS. The anterior alveolus: its importance in limiting orthodontic treatment and its influence on the occurrence of iatrogenic sequelae. Angle Orthod 1996;66(2):95–109.
  5. Coşkun İ, Kaya B. Relationship between alveolar bone thickness, tooth root morphology, and sagittal skeletal pattern: A cone beam computed tomography study. J Orofac Orthop 2019;80(3):144–158. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-019-00175-9.
  6. Yared KF, Zenobio EG, Pacheco W. Periodontal status of mandibular central incisors after orthodontic proclination in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130(1):6.e1–6.e8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.015.
  7. Ten Hoeve A, Mulie RM. The effect of anteropostero incisor repositioning on the palatal cortex as studied with laminagraphy. J Clin Orthod 1976;10:804–882.
  8. Horn AJ. Facial height index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102(2):180–186. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(92)70031-5.
  9. Gebeck TR, Merrifield LL. Orthodontic diagnosis and treatment analysis—concepts and values. Part I. Am J of Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107(4):434–443. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70097-8.
  10. Jacobson A. The “Wits” appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 1975;67(2):125–138. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(75)90065-2.
  11. Fuhrmann RA. Three-dimensional evaluation of periodontal remodeling during orthodontic treatment. Semin Orthod 2002;8(1):23–28. DOI: 10.1053/sodo.2002.28168.
  12. Holmes PB, Wolf BJ, Zhou JA. CBCT atlas of buccal cortical bone thickness in interradicular spaces. Angle Orthod 2015;85(6):911–919. DOI: 10.2319/082214-593.1.
  13. Sameshima GT, Sinclair PM. Predicting and preventing root resorption: part II. Treatment factors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119(5):511–515. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2001.113410.
  14. Sameshima GT, Sinclair PM. Characteristics of patients with severe root resorption. Orthod Craniofac Res 2004;7(2):108–114. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2004.00284.x.
  15. Segal GR, Schiffman PH, Tuncay OC. Meta analysis of the treatment-related factors of external apical root resorption. Orthod Craniofac Res 2004;7(2):71–78. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2004.00286.x.
  16. Ballrick JW, Palomo JM, Ruch E, et al. Image distortion and spatial resolution of a commercially available cone-beam computed tomography machine. Am J Orthod DentofacialOrthop 2008;134(4):573–582. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.025.
  17. American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology AAOMR. Clinical recommendations regarding use of cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics. Position statement by the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. OralSurg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013;116(2):238–257. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2013.06.002.
  18. Baysal A, Ucar FI, Buyuk SK, et al. Alveolar bone thickness and lower incisor position in skeletal class I and class II malocclusions assessed with cone-beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod 2013;43(3):134–140.
  19. Veli I, Uysal T, Baysal A, et al. Buccal cortical bone thickness at miniscrew placement sites in patients with different vertical skeletal patterns. J Orofac Orthop 2014;75(6):417–429. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-014-0235-7.
  20. Ozdemir F, Tozlu M, Germec-cakan D. Cortical bone thickness of the alveolar process measured with cone-beam computed tomography in patients with different facial types. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2013;143(2):190–196. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.09.013.
  21. Baysal A, Uysal T. Dentoskeletal effects of Twin Block and Herbst appliances in patients with class II division 1 mandibular retrognathyEur. J Orthod 2014;36:164–172.
  22. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Self-ligating vs conventional brackets in the treatment of mandibular crowding: a prospective clinical trial of treatment duration and dental effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132(2):208–215. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.030.
  23. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Makou M, et al. Mandibular dental arch changes associated with treatment of crowding using self-ligating and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod 2010(3):1–6. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjp123.
  24. Fleming PS, DiBiase A, Sarri G, et al. Comparison of mandibular arch changes during alignment and leveling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136(3):340–347. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.030.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.