Facial Alveolar Bone Width at the First and Second Maxillary Premolars in Healthy Patients: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study

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 restorations were excluded. The facial alveolar bone width was measured at 1, 2, 3, and 5 mm apical to the vestibular bone peak. A total of 44 patients were included in the study, with 72 first premolars and 72 second premolars analyzed. A descriptive analysis was performed and the normal means were assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The average width of the facial alveolar bone at first and second maxillary premolars was respectively: 1.41 ± 0.50 and 1.72 ± 0.56 at 1 mm, 1.68 ± 0.72 and 2.23 ± 0.66 at 2 mm, 1.71 ± 0.89 and 2.43 ± 0.82 at 3 mm, 1.44 ± 1.00 and 2.31 ± 1.06 at 5 mm from the vestibular bone peak. The facial alveolar bone width at the second maxillary premolars was greater than at the first maxillary premolars at all points measured. This information should be taken in account when planning immediate implants. Further studies are needed to analyze bone resorption at maxillary premolars to better understand facial alveolar bone width influence in implant treatment.

Thickness of the buccal bone wall and root angulation in the maxilla and mandible: an approach to cone beam computed tomography

“…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.…”

Relation between the distance from the cementoenamel junction to the bone crest and the thickness of the facial bone in anterior maxillary teeth: A cross-sectional tomographic study

“…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.…”

“…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.…”

Screw-and-cement–retained prosthesis versus cement-retained prosthesis: Which is more appropriate for the upper premolar area?

“…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.…”