Evaluation of Bone Thickness and Density in the Lower Incisors’ Region in Adults with Different Types of Skeletal Malocclusion using Cone-beam Computed Tomography

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the bone thickness and density in the lower incisors' region in orthodontically untreated adults, and to examine any possible relationship between thickness and density in different skeletal patterns using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods:The CBCT records of 48 patients were obtained from the archive of orthodontic department comprising three groups of malocclusion (class I, II and III) with 16 patients in each group. Using OnDemand 3D ® software, sagittal sections were made for each lower incisor. Thicknesses and densities were measured at three levels of the root (cervical, middle and apical regions) from the labial and lingual sides. Accuracy and reliability tests were undertaken to assess the intraobserver reliability and to detect systematic error. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to detect significant differences among the three groups of skeletal malocclusion.Results: Apical buccal thickness (ABT) in the four incisors was higher in class II and I patients than in class III patients (p < 0.05). There were significant differences between buccal and lingual surfaces at the apical and middle regions only in class II and III patients. Statistical differences were found between class I and II patients for the cervical buccal density (CBD) and between class II and III patients for apical buccal density (ABD). Relationship between bone thickness and density values ranged from strong at the cervical regions to weak at the apical regions. Conclusions:Sagittal skeletal patterns affect apical bone thickness and density at buccal surfaces of the four lower incisors'

Morphological analysis of the alveolar bone of the anterior teeth in severe high-angle skeletal Class II and Class III malocclusions assessed with cone-beam computed tomography

“…Unlike Al Masri' s study[20], our study found that the apical ABA, total ABA of the mandibular alveolar bone in the area of the lower anterior teeth were significantly thinner in patients of skeletal Class III group than that of skeletal Class II group on both of the labial and lingual sides (P<0.05). The ABA at 6 mm below the CEJ level on the lingual side was significantly thinner in patients in skeletal Class III than it was in patients in skeletal Class II (P<0.05).…”

Interradicular distance and alveolar bone thickness for miniscrew insertion: a CBCT study of Persian adults with different sagittal skeletal patterns

“…The minimum sample size was calculated to be 19 patients in each group according to a previous study by Al-Masri et al [ 25 ] assuming the standard deviation of apical buccal thickness to be 1.42, d = 1.7, alpha = 0.05, and study power of 90%.…”

“…The results showed some differences between the two groups such that the alveolar process thickness, the buccal cortical plate, and the interradicular space in the maxilla were greater in class III patients while the mandibular alveolar process was wider in class I patients [ 24 ]. Al-Masri et al [ 25 ] evaluated the thickness and density of bone in patients with different sagittal skeletal patterns and found greater alveolar bone thickness at the apical region of the buccal plate in class I and II patients compared with class III individuals. Also, the alveolar bone thickness at the cervical region of buccal cortical plate was greater in class I than class II patients.…”

“…Considering the controversial results regarding skeletal parameters related to safe and successful insertion of miniscrews, and limited number of studies comparing patients with different sagittal skeletal patterns in this respect [ 24 , 25 ], this study aimed to assess the interradicular distance and alveolar bone thickness for miniscrew insertion in Persian adults with different sagittal skeletal patterns using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).…”

Relationship between mandibular symphysis dimensions and mandibular anterior alveolar bone thickness as assessed with cone-beam computed tomography

“…Prior studies demonstrated a relationship between vertical facial types and alveolar bone support at different tooth levels. Several studies concluded that long-face patients frequently showed thinner anterior alveolar bone at the root apex compared with normal-face and short-face patients 4 , 9 - 11 Furthermore, a thin anterior alveolus was typical in normal-face Class III patients due to the dentoalveolar compensatory mechanism, 4 , 10 , 12 and in patients with severe bimaxillary protrusion. 4 Although thin apical alveolar bone was more frequently found in long lower facial height patients, it could be encountered in any other skeletal types.…”