P Monsour1, T Huang2. 1. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, UQ Oral Health Centre, School of Dentistry, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia. 2. Private Practice, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is increasing frequency of dentoalveolar and palatal implants placed in the posterior maxilla for prosthodontic and orthodontic purposes. The purpose of this study is to provide information on the location and morphology of the greater palatine grooves (GPG) in the hard palate and to promote awareness of this structure. METHODS: Eighty-nine cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were analysed for the presence of a groove, crest or bridging. RESULTS: This study on the morphology of the GPG in the maxillary first and second molar regions showed three distinct appearances: (1) no palatal groove; (2) one palatal groove; (3) two palatal grooves. The detection frequency of no palatal groove in the first molar region was 60%, 34% had one groove and 6% having two grooves. The detection frequency of no palatal groove in the second molar region was 72%, 26% had one groove and 2% had two grooves. The number of crests in the first and second molar regions ranged from 0 to 3. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates a great variation in morphology of the GPG of the hard palate. Knowledge of the GPG will decrease possible complications of implant surgery, particularly palatal implant surgery and to not confuse the GPG with pathology.
BACKGROUND: There is increasing frequency of dentoalveolar and palatal implants placed in the posterior maxilla for prosthodontic and orthodontic purposes. The purpose of this study is to provide information on the location and morphology of the greater palatine grooves (GPG) in the hard palate and to promote awareness of this structure. METHODS: Eighty-nine cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were analysed for the presence of a groove, crest or bridging. RESULTS: This study on the morphology of the GPG in the maxillary first and second molar regions showed three distinct appearances: (1) no palatal groove; (2) one palatal groove; (3) two palatal grooves. The detection frequency of no palatal groove in the first molar region was 60%, 34% had one groove and 6% having two grooves. The detection frequency of no palatal groove in the second molar region was 72%, 26% had one groove and 2% had two grooves. The number of crests in the first and second molar regions ranged from 0 to 3. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates a great variation in morphology of the GPG of the hard palate. Knowledge of the GPG will decrease possible complications of implant surgery, particularly palatal implant surgery and to not confuse the GPG with pathology.