Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Tomographic evaluation of buccal bone in different skeletal patterns and incisors inclination

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Oral Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to correlate the absence of BB with skeletal patterns and incisor inclination using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Methods

The sample comprised CBCT images of 45 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. BB was classified in each third of the anterior teeth as critical, slender, regular, and thick. The skeletal pattern was determined by the ANB (A point, nasion, B point) angle and the incisor inclination using the 1.NA and 1.NB measurements and the interincisal angle (1:1).

Results

In both analyses, the skeletal pattern of class II revealed better BB in the cervical and middle thirds than classes I and III. A higher proportion of critical BB was found in the middle thirds, and the apical third presented the best regular and thick BB conditions, mainly class I. Less BB was observed in middle and apical thirds in the upper incisors and in cervical thirds in lower incisors, mostly when they were more upright.

Conclusions

Knowledge of alveolar bone height and thickness can alter the treatment plan in orthodontics. During orthodontic treatment, more attention should be paid to the lower incisors and vertical teeth because of poor BB conditions, especially in class III skeletal patterns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

BB:

Buccal bone

CBCT:

Cone-beam computed tomography

CEJ:

Cementum–enamel junction

FOV:

Field of view

LC:

Lower canine

LCI:

Lower central incisors

LLI:

Lower lateral incisor

UC:

Upper canine

UCI:

Upper central incisor

ULI:

Upper lateral incisors

References

  1. Newman MG, Takei HH, Klokkevold PR, Carranza FA. Carranza’s clinical periodontology. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2006. p. 84–5.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Han JY, Jung GU. Labial and lingual/palatal bone thickness of maxillary and mandibular anteriors in human cadavers in Koreans. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2011;41:60–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ghassemian M, Nowzari H, Lajolo C, Verdugo F, Pirronti TD, Addona A. The thickness of facial alveolar bone overlying healthy maxillary anterior teeth. J Periodontol. 2012;83:187–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhou Z, Chen W, Shen M, Sun C, Li J, Chen N. Cone beam computed tomographic analyses of alveolar bone anatomy at the maxillary anterior region in Chinese adults. J Biomed Res. 2013;28:498.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang HM, Shen JW, Yu MF, Chen XY, Jiang QH, He FM. Analysis of facial bone wall dimensions and sagittal root position in the maxillary esthetic zone: a retrospective study using cone-beam computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29:1123–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Nahm KY, Kang JH, Moon SC, Choi YS, Kook YA, Kim SH, et al. Alveolar bone loss around incisors in Class I bidentoalveolar protrusion patients: a retrospective three-dimensional cone-beam CT study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012;41:481–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Yagci A, Veli İ, Uysal T, Ucar FI, Ozer T, Enhos S, et al. Dehiscence and fenestration in skeletal Class I, II, and III malocclusions assessed with cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2012;82:67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Al-Masri MMN, Ajaj MA, Hajeer MY, Al-Eed MS. Evaluation of bone thickness and density in the lower incisors’ region in adults with different types of skeletal malocclusion using cone-beam computed tomography. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2015;16:630–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tian YL, Liu F, Sun HJ, Lv P, Cao YM, Yu M, Yue Y. Alveolar bone thickness around maxillary central incisors of different inclination assessed with cone-beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod. 2015;45:245–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ferreira PP, Torres M, Campos PSF, Vogel CJ, De Araújo TM, Rebello IMCR. Evaluation of buccal bone coverage in the anterior region by cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2013;144:698–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1953;39:729–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tweed CH. Clinical orthodontics, vol. 2. St. Louis: CV Mosby; 1966. p. 697.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Timock AM, Cook V, Mcdonald T, Leo MC, Crowe J, Benninger BL, et al. Accuracy and reliability of buccal bone height and thickness measurements from cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011;140:734–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kamburoğlu K, Kurşun Ş, Kiliç C, Özen T. Accuracy of virtual models in the assessment of maxillary defects. Imaging Sci Dent. 2015;45:23–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cook VC, Timock AM, Crowe JJ, Wang M, Covell DA. Accuracy of alveolar bone measurements from cone-beam computed tomography acquired using varying settings. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18:127–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nahás-Scocate ACR, De Siqueira BA, Patel MP, Lipiec-Ximenez ME, Chilvarquer I, Do Valle-Corotti KM. Bone tissue amount related to upper incisors inclination. Angle Orthod. 2014;84:279–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Staudt CB, Kiliaridis S. Different skeletal types underlying Class III malocclusion in a random population. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009;136:715–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Al-Khateeb EA, Al-Khateeb SN. Anteroposterior and vertical components of class II division 1 and division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2009;79:859–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Leung CC, Palomo L, Griffith R, Hans MG. Accuracy and reliability of cone-beam computed tomography for measuring alveolar bone height and detecting bony dehiscences and fenestrations. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010;37:109–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ballrick JW, Palomo JM, Ruch E, Amberman BD, Hans MG. Image distortion and spatial resolution of a commercially available cone-beam computed tomography machine. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:573–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kolsuz ME, Bagis N, Orhan K, Avsever H, Demiralp KÖ. Comparison of the influence of FOV sizes and different voxel resolutions for the assessment of periodontal defects. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44:20150070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. De-Azevedo-Vaz SL, Vasconcelos KF, Neves FS, Melo SLS, Campos PSF, Haiter-Neto F. Detection of periimplant fenestration and dehiscence using two scan modes and the smallest voxel sizes of a CBBT device. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;115:121–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Menezes CCD, Janson G, Massaro CDS, Cambiaghi L, Garib DG. Reproducibility of bone plate thickness measurements with cone-beam computed tomography using different image acquisition protocols. Dental Press J Orthod. 2010;15:143–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sun L, Zhang L, Shen G, Wang B, Fang B. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography in detecting alveolar bone dehiscences and fenestrations. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2015;147:313–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Torres MGG, Campos PSF. Segundo NPN, Ribeiro M, Navarro M, Crusoé-Rebello I Avaliação de doses referenciais obtidas com exames de tomografia computadorizada de feixe cônico adquiridos com diferentes tamanhos de voxel. Dental Press J Orthod. 2010;15:42–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Evangelista K, de Faria VK, Bumann A, Hirsch E, Nitka M, Silva MAG. Dehiscence and fenestration in patients with Class I and Class II Division 1 malocclusion assessed with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010;138:133-e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Maria Guimaraes Lessa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors present and state, by means of this letter, that this manuscript, entitled “TOMOGRAPHIC EVALUATION OF BUCCAL BONE IN DIFFERENT SKELETAL PATTERNS AND INCISORS INCLINATION”, has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Informed consent

Additional informed consent was obtained from all patients for which identifying information is included in this article.

Research involving human and animal participants

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lessa, A.M.G., Ferreira, P.P., Dantas, L.L. et al. Tomographic evaluation of buccal bone in different skeletal patterns and incisors inclination. Oral Radiol 37, 591–599 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-020-00496-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-020-00496-1

Keywords

Navigation