Ehab A Abdulghani1, Maged Sultan Alhammadi2,3, Abeer A Al-Sosowa4,5, Abeer A Almashraqi6, Hasan M Sharhan1, Hanan Al-Fakeh7, BaoCheng Cao8. 1. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, College of Dentistry, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China. 2. Division of Orthodonticsand Dentofacial Orthopedics, Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia. 3. Postgraduate Orthodontic Program, Department of Orthodontics, Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Sana'a, University, Sana'a, Republic of Yemen. 4. Department of Periodontics, College of Dentistry, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China. 5. Department of Periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Thamar University, Dhamar, Yemen. 6. Department of Pre-Clinical Oral Health Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar. 7. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Stomatology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China. 8. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, College of Dentistry, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China. caobch@lzu.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Posterior teeth intrusion is one of the best treatment options for treatment of skeletal open bite in adults; the surrounding anatomical landmarks are one of the restraining factors. This study aimed to assess the vertical relationship between the maxillary posterior teeth (MPT) and the maxillary sinus floor (MSF) in different facial growth patterns in the Chinese adult population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cone beam computed tomography images of 298 patients, 145 males and 153 females aged between 20 and 45 years, were analyzed. Based on Jarabak ratio and the mandibular plane inclination, the sample was categorized into 94 hyperdivergent, 102 hypodivergent, and 102 normodivergent facial patterns subjects. The vertical relationship between the root-apex distances were classified as favorable, indicating no contact (type 1), or unfavorable, indicating roots in contact (type 2) for the posterior teeth intrusion. The relationship in the unfavorable group was subdivided into three subgroups (T2C, T2LC, and T2P). Comparative statistical tests were done related to age, gender, tooth side, and type of multiplanar view (sagittal and coronal). The significant level was set to be P < 0.05. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in the mean distance between both genders in the hyperdivergent group (P < 0.001). The measured distance increased with age in all tooth roots (P < 0.001). In both sagittal and coronal views, the most frequent root scores were type 1 and type 2p (54.2%, 27.5%) and (55.1%, 21.4%), respectively. The hyperdivergent group demonstrated a higher prevalence of type 2P (31.6% and 25.5%), whereas the hypodivergent group showed a lower prevalence (25.1% and 19.2%); furthermore, the second molar's mesiobuccal root in hyperdivergent patients showed the closest distance to the maxillary sinus in sagittal and coronal views, 0.3 ± 3.7 and 0.4 ± 3.1 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Maxillary molars of hyperdivergent patients have the highest possible risk of root resorption due to the possible risk of cortical bone encroachment, while hypodivergent patients have the least possible risk. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Analysis of apex-sinus distances can be of great help for safe posterior teeth intrusion and providing correct and adequate treatment.
OBJECTIVE: Posterior teeth intrusion is one of the best treatment options for treatment of skeletal open bite in adults; the surrounding anatomical landmarks are one of the restraining factors. This study aimed to assess the vertical relationship between the maxillary posterior teeth (MPT) and the maxillary sinus floor (MSF) in different facial growth patterns in the Chinese adult population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cone beam computed tomography images of 298 patients, 145 males and 153 females aged between 20 and 45 years, were analyzed. Based on Jarabak ratio and the mandibular plane inclination, the sample was categorized into 94 hyperdivergent, 102 hypodivergent, and 102 normodivergent facial patterns subjects. The vertical relationship between the root-apex distances were classified as favorable, indicating no contact (type 1), or unfavorable, indicating roots in contact (type 2) for the posterior teeth intrusion. The relationship in the unfavorable group was subdivided into three subgroups (T2C, T2LC, and T2P). Comparative statistical tests were done related to age, gender, tooth side, and type of multiplanar view (sagittal and coronal). The significant level was set to be P < 0.05. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in the mean distance between both genders in the hyperdivergent group (P < 0.001). The measured distance increased with age in all tooth roots (P < 0.001). In both sagittal and coronal views, the most frequent root scores were type 1 and type 2p (54.2%, 27.5%) and (55.1%, 21.4%), respectively. The hyperdivergent group demonstrated a higher prevalence of type 2P (31.6% and 25.5%), whereas the hypodivergent group showed a lower prevalence (25.1% and 19.2%); furthermore, the second molar's mesiobuccal root in hyperdivergent patients showed the closest distance to the maxillary sinus in sagittal and coronal views, 0.3 ± 3.7 and 0.4 ± 3.1 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Maxillary molars of hyperdivergent patients have the highest possible risk of root resorption due to the possible risk of cortical bone encroachment, while hypodivergent patients have the least possible risk. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Analysis of apex-sinus distances can be of great help for safe posterior teeth intrusion and providing correct and adequate treatment.
Authors: Alexander A Schegerer; Ursula Lechel; Manuel Ritter; Gerald Weisser; Christian Fink; Gunnar Brix Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 6.016