OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between sagittal facial pattern and dehiscence/fenestration presence in conjunction with buccolingual tooth inclination by using cone beam computed tomography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was carried out on the cone beam computed tomography scans of the following three groups of patients (n = 20 in each group): Class I, Class II, Class III. Buccolingual tooth inclination, buccal dehiscence/fenestration presence, and lingual dehiscence/fenestration presence were evaluated on each tooth. Analysis of variance, Kruskall-Wallis H, Scheffe, and chi-square tests were used for statistical comparisons. RESULTS: Differences (P < .05) were observed between the groups for inclination of upper incisors and all lower teeth except for second molars. Dehiscence prevalence in the upper buccal and posterior buccal regions was higher (P < .05) in the Class I group when compared with the other groups. Lower buccal and anterior buccal regions showed higher (P = .0001) dehiscence prevalence in all groups. No difference was observed in fenestration prevalence between the groups. The upper buccal and anterior buccal regions showed higher (P = .0001) fenestration prevalence in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontists must consider concealed alveolar defects in treatment planning to avoid gingival recession or tooth mobility.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between sagittal facial pattern and dehiscence/fenestration presence in conjunction with buccolingual tooth inclination by using cone beam computed tomography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was carried out on the cone beam computed tomography scans of the following three groups of patients (n = 20 in each group): Class I, Class II, Class III. Buccolingual tooth inclination, buccal dehiscence/fenestration presence, and lingual dehiscence/fenestration presence were evaluated on each tooth. Analysis of variance, Kruskall-Wallis H, Scheffe, and chi-square tests were used for statistical comparisons. RESULTS: Differences (P < .05) were observed between the groups for inclination of upper incisors and all lower teeth except for second molars. Dehiscence prevalence in the upper buccal and posterior buccal regions was higher (P < .05) in the Class I group when compared with the other groups. Lower buccal and anterior buccal regions showed higher (P = .0001) dehiscence prevalence in all groups. No difference was observed in fenestration prevalence between the groups. The upper buccal and anterior buccal regions showed higher (P = .0001) fenestration prevalence in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontists must consider concealed alveolar defects in treatment planning to avoid gingival recession or tooth mobility.
Authors: Laura E Rothe; Anne-Marie Bollen; Robert M Little; Susan W Herring; Jeremy B Chaison; Curtis S-K Chen; Lars G Hollender Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: David Farnsworth; P Emile Rossouw; Richard F Ceen; Peter H Buschang Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2011-04 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: Anna Ewa Kuc; Jacek Kotuła; Marek Nahajowski; Maciej Warnecki; Joanna Lis; Ellie Amm; Beata Kawala; Michał Sarul Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-07-01