PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate zygomatic bone thickness considering a possible relationship between this parameter and cephalic index (CI) for better use of CI in the implant placement technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CI was calculated for 60 dry Brazilian skulls. The zygomatic bones of the skulls were divided into 13 standardized sections for measurement. Bilateral measurements of zygomatic bone thickness were made on dry skulls. RESULTS: Sections 5, 6, 8, and 9 were appropriate for implant anchorage in terms of location. The mean thicknesses of these sections were 6.05 mm for section 5, 3.15 mm for section 6, 6.13 mm for section 8, and 4.75 mm for section 9. In only 1 section, section 8, did mean thickness on 1 side of of the skull differ significantly from mean thickness on the other side (P <.001). DISCUSSION: For the relationship between quadrant thickness and CI, sections 6 and 8 varied independently of CI. Section 5 associated with brachycephaly, and section 9 associated with subbrachycephaly, presented variations in the corresponding thickness. CONCLUSION: Based on the results, implants should be placed in sections 5 and 8, since they presented the greatest thickness, except in brachycephalic subjects, where thickness was greatest in section 5, and in subbrachycephalic subjects, where thickness was greatest in section 9. CI did not prove to be an appropriate parameter for evaluating zygomatic bone thickness for this sampling. (More than 50 references.)
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate zygomatic bone thickness considering a possible relationship between this parameter and cephalic index (CI) for better use of CI in the implant placement technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CI was calculated for 60 dry Brazilian skulls. The zygomatic bones of the skulls were divided into 13 standardized sections for measurement. Bilateral measurements of zygomatic bone thickness were made on dry skulls. RESULTS: Sections 5, 6, 8, and 9 were appropriate for implant anchorage in terms of location. The mean thicknesses of these sections were 6.05 mm for section 5, 3.15 mm for section 6, 6.13 mm for section 8, and 4.75 mm for section 9. In only 1 section, section 8, did mean thickness on 1 side of of the skull differ significantly from mean thickness on the other side (P <.001). DISCUSSION: For the relationship between quadrant thickness and CI, sections 6 and 8 varied independently of CI. Section 5 associated with brachycephaly, and section 9 associated with subbrachycephaly, presented variations in the corresponding thickness. CONCLUSION: Based on the results, implants should be placed in sections 5 and 8, since they presented the greatest thickness, except in brachycephalic subjects, where thickness was greatest in section 5, and in subbrachycephalic subjects, where thickness was greatest in section 9. CI did not prove to be an appropriate parameter for evaluating zygomatic bone thickness for this sampling. (More than 50 references.)