Limits...
Assessment of buccal bone thickness of aesthetic maxillary region: a cone-beam computed tomography study.

Fuentes R, Flores T, Navarro P, Salamanca C, Beltrán V, Borie E - J Periodontal Implant Sci (2015)

Bottom Line: Additionally, only on the left side were significant differences in some measurements of buccal bone thickness observed according to age and gender.However, age and gender did not show significant differences in heights between the palatal and buccal plates.In a few cases, the buccal wall had a greater height than the palatal wall.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Research Centre in Dental Sciences (CICO), Universidad de La Frontera Dental School, Temuco, Chile.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: The aim of this study was to analyze the anatomical dimensions of the buccal bone walls of the aesthetic maxillary region for immediate implant placement, based upon cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans in a sample of adult patients.

Methods: Two calibrated examiners analyzed a sample of 50 CBCT scans, performing morphometric analyses of both incisors and canines on the left and right sides. Subsequently, in the sagittal view, a line was traced through the major axis of the selected tooth. Then, a second line (E) was traced from the buccal to the palatal wall at the level of the observed bone ridges. The heights of the buccal and palatal bone ridges were determined at the major axis of the tooth. The buccal bone thickness was measured across five lines. The first was at the level of line E. The second was at the most apical point of the tooth, and the other three lines were equidistant between the apical and the cervical lines, and parallel to them. Statistical analysis was performed with a significance level of P≤0.05 for the bone thickness means and standard deviations per tooth and patient for the five lines at varying depths.

Results: The means of the buccal wall thicknesses in the central incisors, lateral incisors and canines were 1.14±0.65 mm, 0.95±0.67 mm and 1.15±0.68 mm, respectively. Additionally, only on the left side were significant differences in some measurements of buccal bone thickness observed according to age and gender. However, age and gender did not show significant differences in heights between the palatal and buccal plates. In a few cases, the buccal wall had a greater height than the palatal wall.

Conclusions: Less than 10% of sites showed more than a 2-mm thickness of the buccal bone wall, with the exception of the central incisor region, wherein 14.4% of cases were ≥2 mm.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Classifications in height of bone ridges at each tooth according to gender. Note that the buccal bone wall never was higher than the palatal at both incisors.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4635437&req=5

f4: Classifications in height of bone ridges at each tooth according to gender. Note that the buccal bone wall never was higher than the palatal at both incisors.

Mentions: For the height of both bone ridges by gender and tooth (Figure 4), only two cases showed a greater buccal wall value when compared to the palatal plate. They were observed at the canine level in both genders. A greater palatal wall value was identified at the central incisors and canines, with both cases of the male gender. No significant differences were found related to ridge height by gender and tooth.


Assessment of buccal bone thickness of aesthetic maxillary region: a cone-beam computed tomography study.

Fuentes R, Flores T, Navarro P, Salamanca C, Beltrán V, Borie E - J Periodontal Implant Sci (2015)

Classifications in height of bone ridges at each tooth according to gender. Note that the buccal bone wall never was higher than the palatal at both incisors.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4635437&req=5

f4: Classifications in height of bone ridges at each tooth according to gender. Note that the buccal bone wall never was higher than the palatal at both incisors.
Mentions: For the height of both bone ridges by gender and tooth (Figure 4), only two cases showed a greater buccal wall value when compared to the palatal plate. They were observed at the canine level in both genders. A greater palatal wall value was identified at the central incisors and canines, with both cases of the male gender. No significant differences were found related to ridge height by gender and tooth.

Bottom Line: Additionally, only on the left side were significant differences in some measurements of buccal bone thickness observed according to age and gender.However, age and gender did not show significant differences in heights between the palatal and buccal plates.In a few cases, the buccal wall had a greater height than the palatal wall.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Research Centre in Dental Sciences (CICO), Universidad de La Frontera Dental School, Temuco, Chile.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: The aim of this study was to analyze the anatomical dimensions of the buccal bone walls of the aesthetic maxillary region for immediate implant placement, based upon cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans in a sample of adult patients.

Methods: Two calibrated examiners analyzed a sample of 50 CBCT scans, performing morphometric analyses of both incisors and canines on the left and right sides. Subsequently, in the sagittal view, a line was traced through the major axis of the selected tooth. Then, a second line (E) was traced from the buccal to the palatal wall at the level of the observed bone ridges. The heights of the buccal and palatal bone ridges were determined at the major axis of the tooth. The buccal bone thickness was measured across five lines. The first was at the level of line E. The second was at the most apical point of the tooth, and the other three lines were equidistant between the apical and the cervical lines, and parallel to them. Statistical analysis was performed with a significance level of P≤0.05 for the bone thickness means and standard deviations per tooth and patient for the five lines at varying depths.

Results: The means of the buccal wall thicknesses in the central incisors, lateral incisors and canines were 1.14±0.65 mm, 0.95±0.67 mm and 1.15±0.68 mm, respectively. Additionally, only on the left side were significant differences in some measurements of buccal bone thickness observed according to age and gender. However, age and gender did not show significant differences in heights between the palatal and buccal plates. In a few cases, the buccal wall had a greater height than the palatal wall.

Conclusions: Less than 10% of sites showed more than a 2-mm thickness of the buccal bone wall, with the exception of the central incisor region, wherein 14.4% of cases were ≥2 mm.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus