Anthropometric Analysis of the Human Mandibular Cortical Bone in Indian Population as Assessed by Dental Computed Tomography (DentaScan)
Raman Grover, Reshu Gupta
Anthropometry, Cortical bone, DentaScan, Mandible, Oral and maxillofacial surgery
Citation Information :
Grover R, Gupta R. Anthropometric Analysis of the Human Mandibular Cortical Bone in Indian Population as Assessed by Dental Computed Tomography (DentaScan). World J Dent 2021; 12 (1):42-49.
Aim: Anatomic variations based on ethnicity, gender, and age play a pivotal role in designing surgical techniques, although the majority of them are based on anthropometric data of the Caucasian population. The study aimed to assess the cortical thickness, width, and height of Indian mandibles using DentaScan; to determine their relationship with age and gender, and to focus on their surgical implications in the Indian population.
Materials and methods: A prospective cross-sectional study conducted at the Department of Dentistry comprised of 100 DentaScans (males and females; 21–50 years) indicated for orthodontic therapy, impacted wisdom tooth surgery, and immediate dental implants. Subjects were equally divided into two age groups (21–35 and 36–50 years). DentaScan assessment of mandibular cortex, width, and height was conducted at symphysis, parasymphysis, and the body region. Student\'s t-test was used to derive comparisons between genders and age groups. p value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: Thicker posterior cortices, wider mandibles, and greater height were found in males. Thicker symphysis was found in younger females. Older subjects demonstrated thicker upper third cortices at parasymphysis and body, and wider upper third mandibles anteriorly. Younger subjects displayed thicker lower third cortices at parasymphysis; wider lower third mandibles anteriorly and upper third posteriorly; and greater height at symphysis. Younger females and all males exhibit safer anterior and posterior sites, respectively. Older females with smaller mandibles require more careful treatment planning.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that anthropometric differences in mandibular cortical bone are important decisive parameters that provide baseline data for designing a “gender- and age-specific” treatment plan for mandibular surgeries in the Indian population.
Clinical significance: Considering the heterogeneity of mandible based on ethnicity, gender, and age; and since variations demand adaptation in surgical techniques, anthropometric baseline data of the Indian mandibular cortex serve as a useful reference guide for the surgeons and provide opportunities for standardized norms for designing a “gender- and age-specific” treatment plan for mandibular surgeries in Indian population.
Raia P, Boggioni M, Carotenuto F, et al. Unexpectedly rapid evolution of mandibular shape in hominins. Sci Rep 2018;8(1):7340. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-25309-8.
Durtschi RB, Chung D, Gentry LR, et al. Developmental craniofacial anthropometry: assessment of race effects. Clin Anat 2009;22(7):800–808. DOI: 10.1002/ca.20852.
Harris JE, Kowalski CJ, Levasseur FA, et al. Age and race as factors in craniofacial growth and development. J Dent Res 1977;56(3):266–274. DOI: 10.1177/00220345770560031201.
Kingsmill VJ, Boyde A. Variation in the apparent density of human mandibular bone with age and dental status. J Anat 1998;192(2):233–244. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-7580.1998.19220233.x.
Schwatz-Dabney CL, Dechow PC. Variations in cortical material properties throughout the human dentate mandible. Am J Physical Anthrop 2003;120(3):252–277. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.10121.
Katranji A, Misch K, Wang HL. Cortical bone thickness in dentate and edentulous human cadavers. J Periodontol 2007;78(5):874–878. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2007.060342.
Promma L, Sakulsak N, Putiwat P, et al. Cortical bone thickness of the mandibular canal and implications for bilateral sagittal split osteotomy: a cadaveric study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;46(5):572–577. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2016.12.008.
Carlos de Souza Fernandes A, Rossi MA, Schaffner IS, et al. Lateral cortical bone thickness of human mandibles in region of mental foramen. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68(12):2980–2985. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.05.026.
Gahleitner A, Watzek G, Imhof H. Dental CT: imaging technique, anatomy, and pathological conditions of the jaws. Eur Radiol 2003;13(2):366–376. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-002-1373-7.
Hansson S, Halldin A. Alveolar ridge resorption after tooth extraction: a consequence of a fundamental principle of bone physiology. J Dent Biomech 2012;3(0):1758736012456543. DOI: 10.1177/1758736012456543.
Swasty D, Huang JC, Gansky SA. Anthropometric analysis of the human mandibular cortical bone as assessed by cone-beam computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67(3):491–500. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.089.
Fiorenza L, Benazzi S, Kullmer O, et al. Dental macrowear and cortical bone distribution of the neanderthal mandible from regourdou (Dordogne, Southwestern France). J Hum Evol 2019;132:174–188. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.05.005.
Al-Jaf NM, Abdul Wahab RM, Abu Hassan MI. Buccal cortical bone thickness in different sagittal skeletal relationship. Orthodon Waves 2018;77(4):220–225. DOI: 10.1016/j.odw.2018.08.001.
Gaffuri F, Cossellu G, Maspero C, et al. Correlation between facial growth patterns and cortical bone thickness assessed with cone-beam computed tomography in young adult untreated patients. Saudi Dent J 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2020.01.009.
Rossi M, Bruno G, De Stefani A, et al. Quantitative CBCT evaluation of maxillary and mandibular cortical bone thickness and density variability for orthodontic miniplate placement. Int Orthodont 2017;15(4):610–624. DOI: 10.1016/j.ortho.2017.09.003.
Pan CY, Liu PH, Tseng YC, et al. Effects of cortical bone thickness and trabecular bone density on primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants. J Dent Sci 2019;14(4):383–388. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2019.06.002.
Niwlikar KB, Khare V, Nathani R, et al. Bone mapping for mini-implant placement with various facial growth patterns using three dimensional volumetric tomography. J Clin Diagnos Res 2018;12(12):ZC13–ZC18. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2018/32796.12343.
Al-Hafidh NN, Al-Khatib AR, Al-Hafidh NN. Assessment of the cortical bone thickness by CT-scan and its association with orthodontic implant position in a young adult Eastern mediterranean population: a cross sectional study. Int Orthodont 2020;18(2):246–257. DOI: 10.1016/j.ortho.2020.02.001.
Al-Jandan BA, Al-Sulaiman AA, Marei HF, et al. Thickness of buccal bone in the mandible and its clinical significance in mono-cortical screws placement. A CBCT analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;42(1):77–81. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.06.009.
Velásquez H, Olate S, Alister JP, et al. Cortical and cancellous bone in mandibular symphysis. Implications in osteosynthesis and osteotomy. Int J Morphol 2017;35(3):1133–1139. DOI: 10.4067/S0717-95022017000300051.
Miyamoto I, Tsuboi Y, Wada E, et al. Influence of cortical bone thickness and implant length on implant stability at the time of surgery-clinical, prospective, biomechanical, and imaging study. Bone 2005;37(6):776–780. DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2005.06.019.
Sato H, Kawamura A, Yamaguchi M, et al. Relationship between masticatory function and internal structure of the mandible based on computed tomography findings. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128(6):766–773. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.05.046.
Vlasiadis KZ, Skouteris CA, Velegrakis GA, et al. Mandibular radiomorphometric measurements as indicators of possible osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Maturitas 2007;58(3):226–235. DOI: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2007.08.014.
Gulsahi A. Osteoporosis and jawbones in women. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2015;5(4):263–267. DOI: 10.4103/2231-0762.161753.
Thanakun S, Pornprasertsuk-Damrongsri S, Na Mahasarakham CP, et al. Increased plasma osteocalcin, oral disease, and altered mandibular bone density in postmenopausal women. Hindawi Int J Dentis 2019;2019:1–11. DOI: 10.1155/2019/3715127.
Sella-Tunis T, Pokhojaev A, Sarig R, et al. Human mandibular shape is associated with masticatory muscle force. Sci Rep 2018;8(1):6042. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-24293-3.
Mastroianni D, Woods MG. 3D-CT assessment of mandibular widths in young subjects with different underlying vertical facial patterns. J World Federat Orthodont 2019;8(2):78–86. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2019.02.005.
Casanova-Sarmiento JA, Arriola-Guillén LE, Ruíz-Mora GA, et al. Comparison of anterior mandibular alveolar thickness and height in young adults with different sagittal and vertical skeletal relationships: A CBCT study. Int Orthod 2020;18(1):79–88. DOI: 10.1016/j.ortho.2019.10.001.
Chimurkar V, Nikam P, Chimurkar L. The anthropometric study of mandible in Maharashtra. Panacea J Med Sci 2013;3(1):24–26.
Jayam R, Annigeri R, Rao B, et al. Panoramic study of mandibular basal bone height. J Orofac Sci 2015;7(1):7–10. DOI: 10.4103/0975-8844.157358.
AlSheikh HA, AlZain S, Warsy A, et al. Mandibular residual ridge height in relation to age, gender and duration of edentulism in a Saudi population: a clinical and radiographic study. Saudi Dent J 2019;31(2):258–264. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2018.12.006.
Ellis 3rdE. A study of 2 bone plating methods for fractures of the mandibular symphysis/body. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69(7):1978–1987. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2011.01.032.
Chandel S, Singh N, Agrawal A, et al. Feasibility of DentaScan in planning of implant surgery in posterior maxilla and mandible. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2017;7(3):188–192. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2017.03.001.
Ramarathinum D, Rao G, Kumar N, et al. Digital volume tomography in the assessment of mandibular invasion in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity – a prospective study. Saudi Dent J 2019;31(1):93–98. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2018.11.004.