Abstract:The purpose of this study was to analyze the thickness of the facial alveolar bone at the first and second maxillary premolars and determinate the percentage of premolars that reached 2 mm in width. A retrospective study was performed, analyzing cone beam computed tomography scans from the database of the Oral Surgery Unit of the University of Valencia. Patients with periodontal disease, orthodontic treatment, absence among the first maxillary molars, premolars with endodontic treatment, or prosthetic restorat… Show more
“…For the upper canines, 58 and 56% of first premolars showed a thickness thinner than 1 mm. Our results are in agreement with those of Rojo et al [ 30 ]. They show that the thickness of the first premolars seems to be less than that of second premolars, although our mean values were lower.…”
BackgroundThe objective of this paper is to anatomically describe the bone morphology in the maxillary and mandibular tooth areas, which might help in planning post-extraction implants.MethodsCBCT images (Planmeca ProMax 3D) of 403 teeth (208 upper teeth and 195 lower teeth) were obtained from 49 patients referred to the Dental School of Seville from January to December 2014. The thickness of the facial wall was measured at the crest, point A, 4 mm below, point B, and at the apex, point C. The second parameter was the angle formed between the dental axis and the axis of the basal bone.ResultsA total of 403 teeth were measured. In the maxilla, 89.4% of incisors, 93.94% of canines, 78% of premolars and 70.5% of molars had a buccal bone wall thickness less than the ideal 2 mm. In the mandible, 73.5% of incisors, 49% of canines, 64% of premolars and 53% of molars had < 1 mm buccal bone thickness as measured at point B. The mean angulation in the maxilla was 11.67 ± 6.37° for incisors, 16.88 ± 7.93° for canines, 13.93 ± 8.6° for premolars, and 9.89 ± 4.8° for molars. In the mandible, the mean values were 10.63 ± 8.76° for incisors, 10.98 ± 7.36° for canines, 10.54 ± 5.82° for premolars and 16.19 ± 11.22° for molars.ConclusionsThe high incidence of a buccal wall thickness of less than 2 mm in over 80% of the assessed sites indicates the need for additional regeneration procedures, and several locations may also require custom abutments to solve the angulation problems for screw-retained crowns.
“…For the upper canines, 58 and 56% of first premolars showed a thickness thinner than 1 mm. Our results are in agreement with those of Rojo et al [ 30 ]. They show that the thickness of the first premolars seems to be less than that of second premolars, although our mean values were lower.…”
BackgroundThe objective of this paper is to anatomically describe the bone morphology in the maxillary and mandibular tooth areas, which might help in planning post-extraction implants.MethodsCBCT images (Planmeca ProMax 3D) of 403 teeth (208 upper teeth and 195 lower teeth) were obtained from 49 patients referred to the Dental School of Seville from January to December 2014. The thickness of the facial wall was measured at the crest, point A, 4 mm below, point B, and at the apex, point C. The second parameter was the angle formed between the dental axis and the axis of the basal bone.ResultsA total of 403 teeth were measured. In the maxilla, 89.4% of incisors, 93.94% of canines, 78% of premolars and 70.5% of molars had a buccal bone wall thickness less than the ideal 2 mm. In the mandible, 73.5% of incisors, 49% of canines, 64% of premolars and 53% of molars had < 1 mm buccal bone thickness as measured at point B. The mean angulation in the maxilla was 11.67 ± 6.37° for incisors, 16.88 ± 7.93° for canines, 13.93 ± 8.6° for premolars, and 9.89 ± 4.8° for molars. In the mandible, the mean values were 10.63 ± 8.76° for incisors, 10.98 ± 7.36° for canines, 10.54 ± 5.82° for premolars and 16.19 ± 11.22° for molars.ConclusionsThe high incidence of a buccal wall thickness of less than 2 mm in over 80% of the assessed sites indicates the need for additional regeneration procedures, and several locations may also require custom abutments to solve the angulation problems for screw-retained crowns.
“…Authors (4,12) who have measured anterior and posterior areas have reported a significant increase in FAB thickness from incisors to premolars. In a previous study, we also observed that first premolars had significant greater FAB thickness than second premolars (19). Another factor to take into account when analyzing the anatomy of the alveolar process at maxillary anterior teeth, is the relation between the angulation of the root axis and the basal bone.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%
“…The measurements from the CEJ to the FBC and of the thickness of the FAB were performed at the sagittal plane (Fig. 1b) as reported by Rojo-Sanchis et al (19) For additional analysis, the subjects were divided into 3 groups according to the CEJ-FBC distance (Shorter group: ≤ 3 mm; Middle group: >3 and ≤ 4.5 mm; Larger group: > 4.5 mm) ( Table 1). Physiological bone levels range from 1 to 3 mm apical to the CEJ (20,21) (Shorter group); Middle and Larger groups correspond to teeth that had slightly or great loss of periodontal attachment.…”
Background: The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate radiologically, the relation between the distance from the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) to the facial bone crest (FBC), and the facial alveolar bone (FAB) width at maxillary anterior teeth. A further aim was to assess if the CEJ-FBC distance had an impact in the prevalence to find a FAB thickness greater than one mm. Study design: CBCT images were retrospectively obtained from the database of the Oral Surgery Unit of the University of Valencia. The teeth were divided in 3 groups according to the CEJ-FBC distance: Shorter (≤3mm), Middle (>3 ≤4.5 mm) and Larger (>4.5 mm). FAB thickness was measured by two different examiners at 1, 2 and 3 mm apical to the FBC. Normality of means were evaluated by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and an ANOVA-type linear model was performed. Results: 82 patients were included in the study, with 156 central incisors, 149 lateral incisors and 152 canines analyzed. A significant greater FAB thickness in Shorter (≤3mm CEJ-FBC) than Middle and Larger group was observed in all distances measured apical to the FBC. There was a significant inverse relation between the distance CEJ-FBC and FAB thickness at all distances measured. The prevalence of a FAB thickness equal or greater than one mm was 35.9% of all teeth analyzed from Shorter, 17.4% of Middle and 8.9% of Larger group at 1 mm apical to the FBC.
“…First, the narrowness of the alveolar ridge in the area of the maxillary premolars makes it difficult to determine the bucco-palatal position of the implant fixture. 12 , 13 , 14 In addition, the alveolar ridge in the maxillary premolar area has a large buccal inclination that could restrict the angle of the implant fixture. 15 If the position and angle of the implant fixture does not take into consideration the alveolar bone morphology and inclination, fenestration and dehiscence could occur.…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.