OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the amount of buccal and lingual supporting bone tissue of 60 upper central incisors and the relationship with their inclination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty healthy adult patients with no previous orthodontic treatment were evaluated using cone-beam computed tomography. Cross-sectional views were analyzed to check the amount of the bone tissue on the cervical (cervical buccal thickness/CBT; lingual/CLT), middle (middle buccal thickness/MBT; lingual/MLT), and apical regions (apical buccal thickness/ABT; lingual/ALT). The Pearson correlation, linear regression, and analysis of variance tests were used (P < .05). RESULTS: The values of ABT of both teeth (11, right upper central incisor; 21, left upper central incisor) were significantly increased with the increase in the angle between the axis of the upper central incisor and the palatal plane (1/PP) (tooth 11 P = .034; tooth 21 P = .009), yet without a strong linear correlation. At the buccal and lingual surfaces, the mean apical supporting bone tissue was significantly greater than the other areas, and the middle region significantly greater than the cervical (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: For both surfaces (buccal and lingual), the amount of bone tissue in the apical region was significantly higher than the middle and cervical regions, and the middle region was significantly higher than the cervical region. In relation to the upper central incisor's inclination, the higher the 1/PP the higher was ABT. However, the coefficient values for both teeth were low.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the amount of buccal and lingual supporting bone tissue of 60 upper central incisors and the relationship with their inclination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty healthy adult patients with no previous orthodontic treatment were evaluated using cone-beam computed tomography. Cross-sectional views were analyzed to check the amount of the bone tissue on the cervical (cervical buccal thickness/CBT; lingual/CLT), middle (middle buccal thickness/MBT; lingual/MLT), and apical regions (apical buccal thickness/ABT; lingual/ALT). The Pearson correlation, linear regression, and analysis of variance tests were used (P < .05). RESULTS: The values of ABT of both teeth (11, right upper central incisor; 21, left upper central incisor) were significantly increased with the increase in the angle between the axis of the upper central incisor and the palatal plane (1/PP) (tooth 11 P = .034; tooth 21 P = .009), yet without a strong linear correlation. At the buccal and lingual surfaces, the mean apical supporting bone tissue was significantly greater than the other areas, and the middle region significantly greater than the cervical (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: For both surfaces (buccal and lingual), the amount of bone tissue in the apical region was significantly higher than the middle and cervical regions, and the middle region was significantly higher than the cervical region. In relation to the upper central incisor's inclination, the higher the 1/PP the higher was ABT. However, the coefficient values for both teeth were low.
Authors: John W Ballrick; J Martin Palomo; Edward Ruch; B Douglas Amberman; Mark G Hans Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Adam M Timock; Valane Cook; Terry McDonald; Michael C Leo; Jennifer Crowe; Brion L Benninger; David A Covell Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Karine Evangelista; Karla de Faria Vasconcelos; Axel Bumann; Edgar Hirsch; Margarita Nitka; Maria Alves Garcia Silva Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Will A Andrews; Wakas S Abdulrazzaq; Jeffrey E Hunt; Lucas M Mendes; Linda A Hallman Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 2.079