Study of alveolar bone morphometry in aesthetics area

doi:10.19438/j.cjoms.2019.03.010

Abstract

Abstract: In this study, the risk factors that may cause aesthetic risk of the immediate implant were explored through the measurement of alveolar bone morphometry, and different classifications of the alveolar bone morphometry were summarized to provide different clinical opinions for preoperative evaluation, in order to provide a reference for preoperative evaluation and surgical selection for immediate implantation in the aesthetic area. METHODS: 100 patients were included in this study who were treated in our department from 2011 to 2017. Spiral CT was used to measure the morphological parameters of the alveolar bone in maxillary aesthetic areas, including the thickness of the buccal bone, the relationship between root and socket and the distance between tip of the root and the buccal sag area. The data were classified according to age, sex, with or without periodontitis and RCT. The data were analyzed with SPSS 19.0 software package. RESULTS: ①Canine's alveolar bone thickness (CD) was the greatest. The average CD value of the elderly group was smaller than that of the young and middle-aged group, and the female was smaller than the male. The average CD value of teeth with periodontitis were smaller than that of the healthy one's (P<0.05).②Central incisors' buccal bone in apex area (BE) was the greatest. BE of teeth with periodontitis and teeth after RCT was smaller than that of healthy teeth. Female's BE was smaller than that of male. The elderly group's BE was smaller than that of the young and middle-aged group (P<0.05). ③The angle between the incisor axis and the alveolar bone axis (β) was smallest in central incisors area, and the lateral incisors and canines were more inclined to the labial side. The difference between the three groups was statistically significant (P<0.05). In 570 anterior teeth, class Ⅰ relationship (β>10°) accounted for about 85%, class Ⅱ relationship (0°<β<10°) accounted for about 10%, class Ⅲ relationship (β<0°) accounted for 0% and the Ⅳ relationship accounted for about 5%. CONCLUSIONS: CT measurement of the bone morphology in maxillary anterior teeth before immediate implantation can effectively evaluate the conditions of the implantation site and reduce the probability of postoperative aesthetic risk.

Key words: Aesthetic area, Aesthetics risk, Alveolar bone morphometry, Spiral CT

CLC Number:

R782.1

WAN Shao-nan, YANG Chi, PU Yi-ping. Study of alveolar bone morphometry in aesthetics area[J]. China Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2019, 17(3): 240-246.

References

[1] Schulte W, Heimke G.The Tübinger immediate implant[J]. Quintessenz, 1976, 27(6) : 17-23.
[2] Sethi A, Kaus T.Immediate replacement of single teeth with immediately loaded implants: retrospective analysis of a clinical case series[J]. Implant Dent, 2017, 26(1): 30-36.
[3] 刘宝林, 林野, 李德华. 口腔种植学 [M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2012: 107-110.
[4] Fatemitabar SA, Nikgoo A.Multichannel computed tomography versus cone-beam computed tomography: linear accuracy of in vitro measurements of the maxilla for implant placement[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2009, 25(3): 499-505.
[5] Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B, et al.A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). Part Ⅱ: On 3D model accuracy[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2010, 75(2): 270-274.
[6] Watanabe H, Honda E, Tetsumura A, et al.A comparative study for spatial resolution and subjective image characteristics of a multi-slice CT and a cone-beam CT for dental use[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2011, 77(3): 397-402.
[7] Vera C, De Kok IJ, Reinhold D, et al.Evaluation of buccal alveolar bone dimension of maxillary anterior and premolar teeth: a cone beam computed tomography investigation[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2012, 27(6): 1514-1519.
[8] 沈建伟, 何福明, 江巧红, 等. 上颌前牙与前磨牙唇侧骨壁厚度的 CBCT 测量分析[J]. 浙江大学学报(医学版), 2012, 41(3): 234-238.
[9] Blanes RJ, Bernard JP, Blanes ZM, et al.A 10-year prospective study of ITI dental implants placed in the posterior region. Ⅱ: Influence of the crown-to-implant ratio and different prosthetic treatment modalities on crestal bone loss[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2007, 18(6): 707-714.
[10] Kim JH, Lee JG, Han DH, et al.Morphometric analysis of the anterior region of the maxillary bone for immediate implant placement using micro-CT[J]. Clin Anat, 2011, 24(2): 462-468.
[11] Kan JY, Roe P, Rungcharassaeng K, et al.Classification of sagittal root position in relation to the anterior maxillary osseous housing for immediate implant placement: a cone beam computed tomography study[J].Int J Oral Maxillofac implants, 2011, 26(4): 873-876.