Ramón Fuentes1, Tania Flores1, Pablo Navarro1, Carlos Salamanca1, Víctor Beltrán1, Eduardo Borie2. 1. Research Centre in Dental Sciences (CICO), Universidad de La Frontera Dental School, Temuco, Chile. 2. Research Centre in Dental Sciences (CICO), Universidad de La Frontera Dental School, Temuco, Chile. ; Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, University of São Paulo Dental School of Ribeirão Preto, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze the anatomical dimensions of the buccal bone walls of the aesthetic maxillary region for immediate implant placement, based upon cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans in a sample of adult patients. METHODS: Two calibrated examiners analyzed a sample of 50 CBCT scans, performing morphometric analyses of both incisors and canines on the left and right sides. Subsequently, in the sagittal view, a line was traced through the major axis of the selected tooth. Then, a second line (E) was traced from the buccal to the palatal wall at the level of the observed bone ridges. The heights of the buccal and palatal bone ridges were determined at the major axis of the tooth. The buccal bone thickness was measured across five lines. The first was at the level of line E. The second was at the most apical point of the tooth, and the other three lines were equidistant between the apical and the cervical lines, and parallel to them. Statistical analysis was performed with a significance level of P≤0.05 for the bone thickness means and standard deviations per tooth and patient for the five lines at varying depths. RESULTS: The means of the buccal wall thicknesses in the central incisors, lateral incisors and canines were 1.14±0.65 mm, 0.95±0.67 mm and 1.15±0.68 mm, respectively. Additionally, only on the left side were significant differences in some measurements of buccal bone thickness observed according to age and gender. However, age and gender did not show significant differences in heights between the palatal and buccal plates. In a few cases, the buccal wall had a greater height than the palatal wall. CONCLUSIONS: Less than 10% of sites showed more than a 2-mm thickness of the buccal bone wall, with the exception of the central incisor region, wherein 14.4% of cases were ≥2 mm.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze the anatomical dimensions of the buccal bone walls of the aesthetic maxillary region for immediate implant placement, based upon cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans in a sample of adult patients. METHODS: Two calibrated examiners analyzed a sample of 50 CBCT scans, performing morphometric analyses of both incisors and canines on the left and right sides. Subsequently, in the sagittal view, a line was traced through the major axis of the selected tooth. Then, a second line (E) was traced from the buccal to the palatal wall at the level of the observed bone ridges. The heights of the buccal and palatal bone ridges were determined at the major axis of the tooth. The buccal bone thickness was measured across five lines. The first was at the level of line E. The second was at the most apical point of the tooth, and the other three lines were equidistant between the apical and the cervical lines, and parallel to them. Statistical analysis was performed with a significance level of P≤0.05 for the bone thickness means and standard deviations per tooth and patient for the five lines at varying depths. RESULTS: The means of the buccal wall thicknesses in the central incisors, lateral incisors and canines were 1.14±0.65 mm, 0.95±0.67 mm and 1.15±0.68 mm, respectively. Additionally, only on the left side were significant differences in some measurements of buccal bone thickness observed according to age and gender. However, age and gender did not show significant differences in heights between the palatal and buccal plates. In a few cases, the buccal wall had a greater height than the palatal wall. CONCLUSIONS: Less than 10% of sites showed more than a 2-mm thickness of the buccal bone wall, with the exception of the central incisor region, wherein 14.4% of cases were ≥2 mm.
Authors: Guy Huynh-Ba; Bjarni E Pjetursson; Mariano Sanz; Denis Cecchinato; Jorge Ferrus; Jan Lindhe; Niklaus P Lang Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Faris Younes; Aryan Eghbali; Margot Raes; Thomas De Bruyckere; Jan Cosyn; Hugo De Bruyn Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: P López-Jarana; C M Díaz-Castro; A Falcão; C Falcão; J V Ríos-Santos; M Herrero-Climent Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 2.757
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: Julio Rojo-Sanchis; David Soto-Peñaloza; David Peñarrocha-Oltra; Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago; José Viña-Almunia Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 2.757