Literature DB >> 22858325

Cortical bone and ridge thickness of hyperdivergent and hypodivergent adults.

Keri A Horner1, Rolf G Behrents, Ki Beom Kim, Peter H Buschang.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to assess differences in dentoalvolar cortical bone thickness between hyperdivergent and hypodivergent young adults.
METHODS: Pretreatment cone-beam computed tomography images of 57 patients, including 30 hypodivergent subjects (22 women, 8 men) and 27 hyperdivergent subjects (20 women, 7 men), were analyzed. The data were imported into imaging software (version 10.5; Dolphin Imaging Systems, Chatsworth, Calif); standardized orientations were used to measure buccal and lingual cortical bone thicknesses at 16 interradicular sites of the maxilla and the mandible. Total alveolar ridge thickness and medullary space thickness were measured at the same sites.
RESULTS: T tests showed significant (P <0.05) group differences, with hypodivergent subjects having significantly thicker buccal cortices. The lingual cortex of the maxilla was also significantly thicker in the hypodivergent than in the hyperdivergent subjects. Alveolar ridge thickness was significantly greater at all sites of the hypodivergent mandible and at the anterior 2 sites of the hypodivergent maxilla. Medullary thickness was significantly greater only in the hypodivergent mandibles between the first molars and the second premolars, and between the first and second premolars. Buccal cortical bone was significantly thicker than lingual cortical bone in the mandible; lingual bone was significantly thicker in the maxilla.
CONCLUSIONS: Cortical bone tends to be thicker in hypodivergent than in hyperdivergent subjects. This explains the concomitant differences in alveolar ridge thickness. Medullary space thickness is largely unaffected by facial divergence.
Copyright © 2012 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22858325     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.03.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  22 in total

1.  No association between gingival labial recession and facial type.

Authors:  Katerina Mazurova; Anne-Marie Renkema; Zuzana Navratilova; Christos Katsaros; Piotr S Fudalej
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2015-07-01       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Buccal cortical bone thickness at miniscrew placement sites in patients with different vertical skeletal patterns.

Authors:  Ilknur Veli; Tancan Uysal; Asli Baysal; Irfan Karadede
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2014-10-26       Impact factor: 1.938

3.  Insertion torque values and success rates for paramedian insertion of orthodontic mini-implants : A retrospective study.

Authors:  Bruno Di Leonardo; Björn Ludwig; Jörg Alexander Lisson; Luca Contardo; Rossano Mura; Jan Hourfar
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2018-02-20       Impact factor: 1.938

4.  Evaluation´ of mandibular alveolar bone in patients with different vertical facial patterns : A cross-sectional CBCT study.

Authors:  Sibel Akbulut; Seval Bayrak
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 1.938

5.  Anatomical limitations and factors influencing molar distalization.

Authors:  Victoria Lee Zhi Hui; Yaxin Xie; Kaiwen Zhang; Haoran Chen; Wenze Han; Ye Tian; Yijia Yin; Xianglong Han
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2022-05-23       Impact factor: 2.684

6.  Relationship between different skeletal facial types and anterior alveolar bone thickness with cone-beam computed tomography in an Asian population.

Authors:  Baochao Li; Jialing Li; Huijuan Wang; Xiaoqiu Xie; Juan Wen; Huang Li
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2022-09

7.  Mandibular skeletal posterior anatomic limit for molar distalization in patients with Class III malocclusion with different vertical facial patterns.

Authors:  Sung-Ho Kim; Kyung-Suk Cha; Jin-Woo Lee; Sang-Min Lee
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2021-07-25       Impact factor: 1.372

8.  Location of the mandibular canal and thickness of the occlusal cortical bone at dental implant sites in the lower second premolar and first molar.

Authors:  Jui-Ting Hsu; Heng-Li Huang; Lih-Jyh Fuh; Rou-Wei Li; Jay Wu; Ming-Tzu Tsai; Yen-Wen Shen; Ming-Gene Tu
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2013-11-03       Impact factor: 2.238

9.  Can cone beam CT predict the hardness of interradicular cortical bone?

Authors:  Tamar Brosh; Bereznyak-Elias Yekaterina; Raphael Pilo; Nir Shpack; Silvia Geron
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2014-04-15       Impact factor: 2.151

10.  Three-dimensional mapping of cortical bone thickness in subjects with different vertical facial dimensions.

Authors:  Mais Medhat Sadek; Noha Ezat Sabet; Islam Tarek Hassan
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 2.750

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.