Comparison of alveolar bone width and sagittal tooth angulation of maxillary central incisors in Class I and Class III canine relationships: a retrospective study using CBCT.
Canine relationship
Cone-beam computed tomography
Immediate implant
Maxillary central incisor
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 07 2022
22 07 2022
Historique:
received:
16
02
2022
accepted:
13
07
2022
entrez:
22
7
2022
pubmed:
23
7
2022
medline:
27
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Canine relationship is a key reference identifying anterior malocclusion and an important implication for evaluating preimplantation bone morphology at maxillary esthetic zone. This study aimed to compare the differences of maxillary central incisor-related measurements (alveolar bone thickness and tooth sagittal angulation) between Class I and Class III canine relationship and further explore the risk factors for immediate implant placement in the anterior maxilla based on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. CBCT digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) files of 107 patients (54 with Class I canine relationship and 53 with Class III canine relationship) were collected and the alveolar bone thickness at mid-root (mid-root buccal thickness/MBT; palatal/MPT), apical regions (apical buccal thickness/ABT; palatal/APT) and sagittal angulation (SA) of the maxillary central incisor at the examined side were measured on the mid-sagittal observation plane. Descriptive statistical analysis and frequency distributions of the measurements based on Class I or Class III canine relationship were established. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher's exact test, independent samples t test and Pearson correlation test with the significance level set at p < 0.05. The frequency distributions of maxillary central incisors' MPT, ABT, APT and SA showed significant differences between Class I and Class III canine relationships (p = 0.030, 0.024, 0.000 and 0.000, respectively). MPT (2.48 ± 0.88 mm vs. 3.01 ± 1.04 mm, p = 0.005), APT (6.79 ± 1.65 mm vs. 8.47 ± 1.93 mm, p = 0.000) and SA (12.23 ± 5.62° vs. 16.42 ± 4.49°, p = 0.000) were significantly smaller in patients with Class III canine relationship. Moreover, SA showed a strong positive correlation with APT (R = 0.723, p = 0.000) and a moderate negative correlation with ABT (R = - 0.554, p = 0.000). In populations with Class III canine relationship, maxillary central incisors were significantly more labially inclined and have a thinner palatal bone plate at the apex compared with Class I relationship. Clinicians should avoid palatal perforation during immediate implantation at sites of originally protrusive maxillary incisors.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Canine relationship is a key reference identifying anterior malocclusion and an important implication for evaluating preimplantation bone morphology at maxillary esthetic zone. This study aimed to compare the differences of maxillary central incisor-related measurements (alveolar bone thickness and tooth sagittal angulation) between Class I and Class III canine relationship and further explore the risk factors for immediate implant placement in the anterior maxilla based on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data.
METHODS
CBCT digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) files of 107 patients (54 with Class I canine relationship and 53 with Class III canine relationship) were collected and the alveolar bone thickness at mid-root (mid-root buccal thickness/MBT; palatal/MPT), apical regions (apical buccal thickness/ABT; palatal/APT) and sagittal angulation (SA) of the maxillary central incisor at the examined side were measured on the mid-sagittal observation plane. Descriptive statistical analysis and frequency distributions of the measurements based on Class I or Class III canine relationship were established. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher's exact test, independent samples t test and Pearson correlation test with the significance level set at p < 0.05.
RESULTS
The frequency distributions of maxillary central incisors' MPT, ABT, APT and SA showed significant differences between Class I and Class III canine relationships (p = 0.030, 0.024, 0.000 and 0.000, respectively). MPT (2.48 ± 0.88 mm vs. 3.01 ± 1.04 mm, p = 0.005), APT (6.79 ± 1.65 mm vs. 8.47 ± 1.93 mm, p = 0.000) and SA (12.23 ± 5.62° vs. 16.42 ± 4.49°, p = 0.000) were significantly smaller in patients with Class III canine relationship. Moreover, SA showed a strong positive correlation with APT (R = 0.723, p = 0.000) and a moderate negative correlation with ABT (R = - 0.554, p = 0.000).
CONCLUSIONS
In populations with Class III canine relationship, maxillary central incisors were significantly more labially inclined and have a thinner palatal bone plate at the apex compared with Class I relationship. Clinicians should avoid palatal perforation during immediate implantation at sites of originally protrusive maxillary incisors.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35869442
doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02331-x
pii: 10.1186/s12903-022-02331-x
pmc: PMC9308311
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
303Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Imaging Sci Dent. 2018 Mar;48(1):51-57
pubmed: 29581950
BMC Oral Health. 2021 Mar 22;21(1):144
pubmed: 33752663
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021 Feb;24(1):87-95
pubmed: 32615016
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Jul;152(1):66-79
pubmed: 28651770
Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2015 May;31(5):265-70
pubmed: 25910562
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2011 Apr;31(2):125-31
pubmed: 21491011
J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2019 Mar;19(1):34-52
pubmed: 30926101
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017 Aug;19(4):694-702
pubmed: 28429394
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29 Suppl:216-20
pubmed: 24660199
Angle Orthod. 2014 Mar;84(2):279-85
pubmed: 23883305
Korean J Orthod. 2015 Sep;45(5):245-52
pubmed: 26445719
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012 Aug;142(2):170-8
pubmed: 22858325
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 May-Jun;29(3):627-33
pubmed: 24818201
Periodontol 2000. 2019 Feb;79(1):151-167
pubmed: 30892772
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Aug;28(8):931-937
pubmed: 27392532
Am J Orthod. 1984 Jul;86(1):25-32
pubmed: 6588757
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019 Oct;21(5):1080-1086
pubmed: 31424162
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Jul-Aug;26(4):873-6
pubmed: 21841998
J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Jul;120(1):50-56
pubmed: 29195817
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Feb;143(2):190-6
pubmed: 23374925
Head Face Med. 2016 Nov 7;12(1):31
pubmed: 27821165
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Aug;138(2):133.e1-7; discussion 133-5
pubmed: 20691344
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Sep-Oct;29(5):1123-9
pubmed: 25216138
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2021 Mar-Apr;41(2):245-251
pubmed: 33819331
Angle Orthod. 2008 Jan;78(1):38-43
pubmed: 18193946
Dtsch Zahnarztl Z. 1978 May;33(5):348-59
pubmed: 348452
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:43-61
pubmed: 15635945
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Jan;69(1):142-53
pubmed: 21050638
J Orofac Orthop. 2019 May;80(3):144-158
pubmed: 30980091
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Feb;25(2):194-206
pubmed: 23294441
Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Apr;25(4):1655-1675
pubmed: 33515121