Faris Younes1, Aryan Eghbali1, Margot Raes2, Thomas De Bruyckere1, Jan Cosyn1,2, Hugo De Bruyn2,3. 1. Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium. 2. Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 3. Department of Prosthodontics, Malmo University, Malmo, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between buccal bone and soft tissue thickness at teeth in the premaxilla by means of non-invasive registration methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Buccal bone thickness at central incisors, lateral incisors and canines was measured at five reference points (1-5 mm from the top of the alveolar crest) on CB-CT scans of 21 patients. The corresponding buccal gingival thickness was measured by the use of an ultrasonic device. Spearman's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the correlation between buccal bone and soft tissue thickness at each tooth type. RESULTS: Mean buccal bone thickness (SD) at central incisors, lateral incisors and canines was 1.07 mm (0.34 mm), 1.16 mm (0.54 mm) and 0.98 mm (0.37 mm), respectively. For central incisors, 68% of all sites had a thickness <1 mm and 32% had a thickness between 1.0 and 2.0 mm. At lateral incisors, 44% demonstrated buccal bone thickness between 0 and 1.0 mm, 48% between 1.0 and 2.0 mm and 8% ≥2 mm. For canines, 57% of the sites were <1 mm thick; 41% were between 1.0 and 2.0 mm thick, and 2% demonstrated ≥2 mm thickness. Mean gingival thickness (SD) at central incisors, lateral incisors and canines was 1.37 mm (0.32 mm), 1.33 mm (0.32 mm) and 1.08 mm (0.25 mm), respectively. The correlation between buccal bone and soft tissue thickness was moderately positive (ρ = 0.406; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A thin buccal bone wall (<1 mm) may be expected in over half of the central incisors and canines. The correlation between buccal bone and soft tissue thickness was moderately positive.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between buccal bone and soft tissue thickness at teeth in the premaxilla by means of non-invasive registration methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Buccal bone thickness at central incisors, lateral incisors and canines was measured at five reference points (1-5 mm from the top of the alveolar crest) on CB-CT scans of 21 patients. The corresponding buccal gingival thickness was measured by the use of an ultrasonic device. Spearman's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the correlation between buccal bone and soft tissue thickness at each tooth type. RESULTS: Mean buccal bone thickness (SD) at central incisors, lateral incisors and canines was 1.07 mm (0.34 mm), 1.16 mm (0.54 mm) and 0.98 mm (0.37 mm), respectively. For central incisors, 68% of all sites had a thickness <1 mm and 32% had a thickness between 1.0 and 2.0 mm. At lateral incisors, 44% demonstrated buccal bone thickness between 0 and 1.0 mm, 48% between 1.0 and 2.0 mm and 8% ≥2 mm. For canines, 57% of the sites were <1 mm thick; 41% were between 1.0 and 2.0 mm thick, and 2% demonstrated ≥2 mm thickness. Mean gingival thickness (SD) at central incisors, lateral incisors and canines was 1.37 mm (0.32 mm), 1.33 mm (0.32 mm) and 1.08 mm (0.25 mm), respectively. The correlation between buccal bone and soft tissue thickness was moderately positive (ρ = 0.406; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A thin buccal bone wall (<1 mm) may be expected in over half of the central incisors and canines. The correlation between buccal bone and soft tissue thickness was moderately positive.
Authors: Brenda Y Herrera-Serna; Olga P López-Soto; Tatiana Chacón; Ana M Montoya-Gómez; Daniela Agudelo-Flórez; Oscar H Zuluaga-López Journal: J Clin Exp Dent Date: 2022-09-01
Authors: Magdalena Bednarz-Tumidajewicz; Aleksandra Sender-Janeczek; Jacek Zborowski; Tomasz Gedrange; Tomasz Konopka; Agata Prylińska-Czyżewska; Elżbieta Dembowska; Wojciech Bednarz Journal: Med Sci Monit Date: 2020-10-16
Authors: Šimon Belák; Radovan Žižka; Martin Starosta; Jana Zapletalová; Jiří Šedý; Michal Štefanatný Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2021-01-23 Impact factor: 2.757