Evaluation of factors affecting alveolar ridge height and facial bone thickness in Chinese maxillary central incisors by cone beam CT.
Buccal bone wall
Cone beam CT
Immediate implantation
Maxillary central incisor
Smoking
Journal
Journal of dental sciences
ISSN: 2213-8862
Titre abrégé: J Dent Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101293181
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
07
05
2020
revised:
28
05
2020
entrez:
1
1
2021
pubmed:
2
1
2021
medline:
2
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the immediate implantation of maxillary central incisors, the height of the alveolar bone is lost, and there is often a risk of bone fracture due to the thin buccal bone wall (BBW). The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of smoking, age, and root position in the alveolar bone on the BBW and the distance between the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and the facial bone crest (FBC) of Chinese maxillary central incisors. The patients were divided by smoking, gender, age, and root sagittal position in the alveolar bone. BBW thickness was measured at the following sites: the 4 mm apical to the CEJ, the middle of the root, and the apex. The distance from the CEJ to the FBC was also evaluated. Cone beam CT (CBCT) data for the maxillary central incisors of 645 patients (323 males and 322 females) were selected and analyzed. The CEJ-FBC distance in patients who smoked (2.79 ± 0.78 mm) was significantly greater than that of non-smokers (2.54 ± 0.69 mm). The BBW in subtype III (0.74 ± 0.43 mm, 0.81 ± 0.36 mm) was thinner than that in subtypes I and II at 4 mm apical to the CEJ and in the middle of the root, with a statistically significant difference ( In most Chinese people, smoking, gender, age, and the position of the root in alveolar bone are all important factors that must be considered before immediate implantation is undertaken.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
In the immediate implantation of maxillary central incisors, the height of the alveolar bone is lost, and there is often a risk of bone fracture due to the thin buccal bone wall (BBW). The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of smoking, age, and root position in the alveolar bone on the BBW and the distance between the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and the facial bone crest (FBC) of Chinese maxillary central incisors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
The patients were divided by smoking, gender, age, and root sagittal position in the alveolar bone. BBW thickness was measured at the following sites: the 4 mm apical to the CEJ, the middle of the root, and the apex. The distance from the CEJ to the FBC was also evaluated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Cone beam CT (CBCT) data for the maxillary central incisors of 645 patients (323 males and 322 females) were selected and analyzed. The CEJ-FBC distance in patients who smoked (2.79 ± 0.78 mm) was significantly greater than that of non-smokers (2.54 ± 0.69 mm). The BBW in subtype III (0.74 ± 0.43 mm, 0.81 ± 0.36 mm) was thinner than that in subtypes I and II at 4 mm apical to the CEJ and in the middle of the root, with a statistically significant difference (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In most Chinese people, smoking, gender, age, and the position of the root in alveolar bone are all important factors that must be considered before immediate implantation is undertaken.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33384802
doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2020.05.021
pii: S1991-7902(20)30115-X
pmc: PMC7770285
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
229-235Informations de copyright
© 2020 Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.
Références
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Sep;96(35):e7892
pubmed: 28858105
Arch Oral Biol. 2017 Jul;79:1-6
pubmed: 28279824
Implant Dent. 2016 Aug;25(4):520-4
pubmed: 27455431
J Clin Periodontol. 2004 Apr;31(4):260-6
pubmed: 15016253
J Periodontol. 2012 Feb;83(2):187-97
pubmed: 21692627
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019 Aug;21(4):702-707
pubmed: 31267668
Periodontol 2000. 2019 Oct;81(1):48-56
pubmed: 31407428
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Jul-Aug;26(4):873-6
pubmed: 21841998
J Clin Periodontol. 2018 Nov;45(11):1388-1397
pubmed: 30246359
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Aug;14(4):595-602
pubmed: 20491811
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2019 May 1;24(3):e409-e415
pubmed: 31041918
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Feb;25(2):194-206
pubmed: 23294441
J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2015 Oct;45(5):162-8
pubmed: 26550524
Periodontol 2000. 2017 Feb;73(1):84-102
pubmed: 28000278
J Craniofac Surg. 2017 May;28(3):700-705
pubmed: 28403135
Prog Orthod. 2018 Oct 15;19(1):40
pubmed: 30318565
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Feb;29(2):202-214
pubmed: 29148597
BMC Oral Health. 2018 Nov 21;18(1):194
pubmed: 30463614
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019 Jun;21(3):503-509
pubmed: 31058445
Medicina (Kaunas). 2019 Sep 03;55(9):
pubmed: 31484416
Med Sci Monit. 2019 Aug 15;25:6104-6109
pubmed: 31414668
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Jan;69(1):142-53
pubmed: 21050638
J Dent Sci. 2020 Mar;15(1):22-27
pubmed: 32256996
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 Jul/Aug;33(4):880-887
pubmed: 30025005
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Jan;21(1):37-42
pubmed: 20070745