Assessment of Bone Dimensions in the Anterior Maxilla: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study

AlTarawneh, Sandra; AlHadidi, Abeer; Hamdan, Ahmad A.; Shaqman, Murad; Habib, Emad

doi:10.1111/jopr.12675

Cited by 30 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on our results, CEJ-BC distance did not exceed 4 mm in any of the reported teeth, with premolars being the only teeth presenting with this maximum distance. These findings are in agreement with other studies that reported similar CEJ-BC mean values on central incisors, lateral incisors, canines and premolars (AlTarawneh, AlHadidi, Hamdan, Shaqman, & Habib, 2018;El Nahass & Naiem, 2015;Januário et al, 2011;Wang et al, 2014;Zekry, Wang, Chau, & Lang, 2014). Furthermore, our finding that the CEJ-BC distance seems to increase with increasing age is also consistent with previous reports (Cook et al, 2011;Dos Santos, Oliveira Reis Durao, de Campos Felino, & Casaleiro Lobo de Faria de Almeida, 2019;Zekry et al, 2014) and represents the physiologic bone loss that takes place with ageing.…”

Section: Cej-bc Distancesupporting

confidence: 93%

Buccal bone thickness of maxillary anterior teeth: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Tsigarida

Toscano

Bezerra³

et al. 2020

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As modern criteria for implant success have expanded to include parameters not only at the implant, peri-implant soft tissue and prosthesis levels, but also the patient's subjective evaluation, the planning and execution of implant rehabilitation in the anterior maxilla has become increasingly complex (Papaspyridakos, Chen, Singh, Weber, & Gallucci, 2012). In these cases, anterior implant treatment should satisfy the high aesthetic demands of the patient in order to obtain a result that best imitates the natural dentition. Prosthetically driven implant 3-D positioning is crucial and in order to optimize the aesthetic outcome and reduce the risk of post-operative bone loss and soft tissue recession, a minimum of 1.5 mm of BBT has been recommended (Monje et al., 2019). Numerous studies, however, have demonstrated a reduced thickness of the cortical bone in the anterior maxilla, with some reporting a high incidence of thin buccal

show abstract

Section: Cej-bc Distancesupporting

confidence: 93%

Buccal bone thickness of maxillary anterior teeth: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Tsigarida

Toscano

Bezerra³

et al. 2020

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous reports have been performed to evaluate the bone thickness of maxillary anterior teeth [2,13,14,15]. In a majority of cases, the thickness of the labial bony wall of the maxillary anterior teeth is thin [13]. In another report, the average crestal bone thickness was 0.82 mm for the anterior maxilla [2].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, 83% and 92% of the anterior tooth had labial bone thickness 1 mm or less at the crest and middle of the root, respectively [15]. The average bone thickness at the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the labial side of the roots was 0.73, 0.69, and 0.60 mm for the central incisor, respectively, and 0.70, 0.61, and 0.49 mm for the lateral incisors [13]. The thickness of the palatal bony wall was significantly larger than the labial bony wall [13].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The average bone thickness at the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the labial side of the roots was 0.73, 0.69, and 0.60 mm for the central incisor, respectively, and 0.70, 0.61, and 0.49 mm for the lateral incisors [13]. The thickness of the palatal bony wall was significantly larger than the labial bony wall [13]. Most palatal thickness at the crest was thin (<1 mm, 63%), and most palatal thickness at the middle of the root and apex was thick (≥2 mm) (98%, and 99%, respectively) [15].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Use of CBCT may be helpful for immediate implantation, especially when bone augmentation is necessary [13]. It is noted that peri-implant tissue stability may be determined by the crestal bone thickness [16].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Analysis of Alveolar Bone Morphology of the Maxillary Central and Lateral Incisors with Normal Occlusion

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectives: This study investigated the morphology of the labial and palatal bony wall of the maxillary central and lateral incisors using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). The difference between males and females and the measurement between right and left sides were measured. Materials and Methods: Twenty participants, consisting of 11 females and 9 males having normal occlusion, were used for the analysis. The mean age was 21.9 ± 3.0 years. The thickness of the labial bony wall and palatal bony wall, perpendicular to the long axis of the root, were evaluated at 3 and 5 mm apical from the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and at the root apex. The available bony wall below the apex of the central and lateral incisors, and the angulation between the long axis of the tested tooth and outer surface of the labial bone were measured. Results: The mean labial bony wall thickness at the 3 and 5 mm apical from the CEJ were 1.1 ± 0.3 mm and 1.0 ± 0.4 mm for central incisors, respectively, as well as 1.2 ± 0.4 mm and 1.0 ± 0.4 mm for lateral incisors, respectively. The mean palatal bony wall thickness at 5 mm from the CEJ was above 2 mm in the central and lateral incisors. The percentage of labial bony wall thickness 2 mm or greater at the root apex in central incisors was higher than in lateral incisors (62.5% vs. 55.0%). The percentage of palatal bony wall thickness ≥2 mm at 3 mm apical from the CEJ in the central incisors was higher than in the lateral incisors (37.5% vs. 15.0%). The results on the left and right sides did not show statistically significant differences, except in the labial and palatal bony wall thickness at 3 mm from the CEJ in the lateral incisor. Generally, no significant differences were seen between males and females, but males had a significantly higher labial bony wall thickness at 3 and 5 mm from the CEJ in the central and lateral incisors when compared with females. Conclusions: This study showed that a majority of the cases of Korean participants had less than 2 mm of labial bony wall thickness at 3 and 5 mm apical from the CEJ at central and lateral incisors, and this should be kept in mind while performing dental practices, including tooth extraction or immediate implantation in anterior regions. Preoperative analysis using CBCT may be beneficial for establishing the treatment plan.

show abstract

Morphologic analysis of alveolar bone in maxillary and mandibular incisors on sagittal views

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessment of Bone Dimensions in the Anterior Maxilla: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study

Abstract: Labial bone thickness is thin in the vast majority of maxillary anterior teeth. Use of CBCT facilitates planning for immediate implant placement and is helpful in the decision-making process when further bone augmentation is needed.

Cited by 30 publications

References 37 publications

Buccal bone thickness of maxillary anterior teeth: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Buccal bone thickness of maxillary anterior teeth: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Analysis of Alveolar Bone Morphology of the Maxillary Central and Lateral Incisors with Normal Occlusion

Morphologic analysis of alveolar bone in maxillary and mandibular incisors on sagittal views

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About