Evaluating mandibular symphysis bone density according to various skeletal patterns with CBCT

Abstract

ObjectiveThe aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the bone density (BD) at the mandibular symphysis according to horizontal and vertical patterns using cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT).Setting and SamplingThree hundred nineteen untreated adults with a mean age of 24 years.Materials and MethodsCBCT images were converted into the lateral cephalometric images, and tracings were performed for categorizing the patients based on skeletal features. Cortical BDs at B point, pogonion (Pog), genion (Ge) and menton (Me), and cancellous BDs of the mandibular symphysis were measured using CBCT images. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate the effects of horizontal and vertical skeletal patterns on BDs.ResultsFemales exhibited higher BD than males at the Me, Pog, Ge (P < .001). Hyperdivergent skeletal pattern showed significantly higher cortical BD than normovergent and hypodivergent skeletal patterns at Me (P < .001). Normovergent skeletal pattern showed significantly higher cortical BD than hypodivergent skeletal patterns at Me (P = .001). Class II skeletal pattern showed significantly higher cortical BD than Class I and III skeletal patterns at Me (P < .001) and Ge (P < .05). Class I skeletal pattern showed significantly higher mean cortical BD than Class III skeletal pattern at B point (P = .025). Cancellous BD was higher in Class III and hypodivergent skeletal patterns than others but showed no statistical significance.ConclusionsSignificant differences were identified across various skeletal patterns. Several mandibular symphyseal landmarks showed statistically significant differences in BD at Me, B point and Ge, with Me having the most statistically significant findings.

The relation between mandibular symphysis and the Angle class in orthodontic treatment

“…Between the three dental classes, the height of the symphysis did not show significant differences, even though class III individuals were the ones with higher values. These results are in agreement with the results of other studies, which report that these individuals present greater vertical growth and that it is associated with an increase in cortical bone thickness [35,36].…”

“…The shape of the symphysis is also associated with the amount of alveolar bone, with a narrow MS being associated with a thin alveolar bone and a wide MS with a thick alveolar bone [ 35 , 42 ]. A careful analysis of the bone condition of each individual should be performed before developing an orthodontic treatment plan, especially when considering a large amount of movement [ 14 , 15 , 43 , 44 ].…”

“…The height and projection of the MS influence the adjacent soft tissue. It is also important to understand and consider the mandibular growth in the treatment plan to have more predictable results, thus determining the harmony and facial aesthetics [ 11 , 35 , 46 , 47 ].…”

“…The chin is one of the most visible structures of the face, not only in frontal view, but also in profile view, and its prominence is one of the facial features that society tends to associate with an individual’s personality. Thus, the treatment plan must take into account the morphology of the symphysis (height, width and inclination), the position of the lower incisors and the amount of bone available [ 28 , 29 , 35 , 36 , 50 ]. The treatment must consider both the hard tissues and the soft and the search for symmetry and proportionality of the face should prevail for a facial balance.…”

Effect of breathing patterns on mandibular cortical bone quality in children and establishment of a preliminary screening model

“…In the selection of measurement sites during the investigation, we referred to a study that used CBCT to assess mandibular symphysis bone density in different skeletal patterns for anterior mandibular bone evaluation [ 15 ]. For the middle area of the mandible, we have chosen the cortical bone below the mental foramen based on previous literatures, which demonstrated robust sensitivity (0.602; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.398–0.775) and specificity (0.708; 95% CI, 0.568–0.817) [ 16 ].…”