İpek Coşkun1, Burçak Kaya2,3. 1. Orthodontist, Private Practice, İstanbul, Turkey. 2. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey. burcak_kaya@hotmail.com. 3. Dis Hekimligi Fakultesi, Ortodonti Anabilim Dali, Baskent Universitesi, 1. Cad No: 107, 06490, Bahcelievler-Ankara, Turkey. burcak_kaya@hotmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The goal of this work was to examine the relationship between sagittal facial pattern and thickness of alveolar bone in conjunction with root morphology of teeth by using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). METHODS: The study was carried out on the CBCT scans from 3 group of patients (n = 20 in each group). The first group involved skeletal class 1, the second group involved skeletal class 2, and the third group involved skeletal class 3 patients. In all, 14 permanent teeth and interdental regions in the maxilla and mandible were evaluated. Root length and root width were measured on each tooth. Buccal cortical bone thickness, cancellous bone thickness, and lingual cortical bone thicknesses were measured in each interdental region. Analysis of variance, Kruskall-Wallis H and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical comparisons. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the groups for root length, root width, buccal cortical bone and lingual cortical bone thickness. A significant difference was observed between the groups for cancellous bone thickness as it was thicker in skeletal class 2 group. Cortical bone was thicker in the mandible compared to maxilla on both buccal and lingual sides and it was thicker in the posterior region compared to the anterior region on the buccal side. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in cancellous bone thickness between different sagittal facial patterns and differences in cortical bone thickness between different alveolar regions should be taken into consideration when planning orthodontic tooth movements and anchorage mechanics.
PURPOSE: The goal of this work was to examine the relationship between sagittal facial pattern and thickness of alveolar bone in conjunction with root morphology of teeth by using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). METHODS: The study was carried out on the CBCT scans from 3 group of patients (n = 20 in each group). The first group involved skeletal class 1, the second group involved skeletal class 2, and the third group involved skeletal class 3 patients. In all, 14 permanent teeth and interdental regions in the maxilla and mandible were evaluated. Root length and root width were measured on each tooth. Buccal cortical bone thickness, cancellous bone thickness, and lingual cortical bone thicknesses were measured in each interdental region. Analysis of variance, Kruskall-Wallis H and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical comparisons. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the groups for root length, root width, buccal cortical bone and lingual cortical bone thickness. A significant difference was observed between the groups for cancellous bone thickness as it was thicker in skeletal class 2 group. Cortical bone was thicker in the mandible compared to maxilla on both buccal and lingual sides and it was thicker in the posterior region compared to the anterior region on the buccal side. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in cancellous bone thickness between different sagittal facial patterns and differences in cortical bone thickness between different alveolar regions should be taken into consideration when planning orthodontic tooth movements and anchorage mechanics.