Assessment of sagittal root position, alveolar bone concavity, and labial bone perforation in the mandibular anterior tooth region for immediate implant placement.

Alveolar bone concavity Cone-beam computed tomography Labial bone perforation Mandibular anterior teeth Sagittal root position

Journal

Journal of dental sciences
ISSN: 2213-8862
Titre abrégé: J Dent Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101293181

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jul 2023
Historique:
received: 12 12 2022
revised: 27 01 2023
medline: 5 7 2023
pubmed: 5 7 2023
entrez: 5 7 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Immediate implant placement in the mandibular anterior tooth region requires a thorough understanding of the alveolar bone anatomy for determining the ideal implant position and preventing labial bone perforation. The anatomical characteristics of the jaws are closely related to the sagittal root position (SRP) and labial concavity of the alveolar bone. This study evaluated SRP, labial concavity, and labial bone perforation in the mandibular anterior tooth region. Cone-beam computed tomography images of 116 participants (696 teeth) were uploaded to medical imaging software. SRP classification, labial concavity of the alveolar bone, and labial bone perforation were analyzed. A The results revealed that the frequency of SRP Class I (88.20%) was the highest, and that of SRP Class III was the lowest (0.53%). Central incisors had the highest mean labial concavity (144.5°), followed by the canines (143.9°) and lateral incisors (143.3°), and the differences were significant between any two of the tooth groups (all The majority of mandibular anterior teeth had SRP Class I, with Class III being the least prevalent. Central incisors had the highest mean alveolar bone concavity angle and the most frequent labial bone perforations.

Sections du résumé

Background/purpose UNASSIGNED
Immediate implant placement in the mandibular anterior tooth region requires a thorough understanding of the alveolar bone anatomy for determining the ideal implant position and preventing labial bone perforation. The anatomical characteristics of the jaws are closely related to the sagittal root position (SRP) and labial concavity of the alveolar bone. This study evaluated SRP, labial concavity, and labial bone perforation in the mandibular anterior tooth region.
Materials and methods UNASSIGNED
Cone-beam computed tomography images of 116 participants (696 teeth) were uploaded to medical imaging software. SRP classification, labial concavity of the alveolar bone, and labial bone perforation were analyzed. A
Results UNASSIGNED
The results revealed that the frequency of SRP Class I (88.20%) was the highest, and that of SRP Class III was the lowest (0.53%). Central incisors had the highest mean labial concavity (144.5°), followed by the canines (143.9°) and lateral incisors (143.3°), and the differences were significant between any two of the tooth groups (all
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
The majority of mandibular anterior teeth had SRP Class I, with Class III being the least prevalent. Central incisors had the highest mean alveolar bone concavity angle and the most frequent labial bone perforations.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37404638
doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2023.01.034
pii: S1991-7902(23)00034-X
pmc: PMC10316510
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

1227-1234

Informations de copyright

© 2023 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

BMC Oral Health. 2008 Nov 24;8:32
pubmed: 19025637
BMC Oral Health. 2018 Nov 21;18(1):194
pubmed: 30463614
J Prosthodont. 2019 Mar;28(3):244-251
pubmed: 28877371
Implant Dent. 2016 Aug;25(4):520-4
pubmed: 27455431
Int J Implant Dent. 2021 Jul 26;7(1):68
pubmed: 34308500
J Clin Med. 2021 Dec 14;10(24):
pubmed: 34945150
J Adv Prosthodont. 2012 Aug;4(3):146-52
pubmed: 22977722
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007 Jan-Feb;22(1):127-31
pubmed: 17340906
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2018;11 Suppl 1:77-92
pubmed: 30109301
J Periodontol. 2004 May;75(5):631-45
pubmed: 15212344
J Oral Implantol. 2021 Apr 1;47(2):102-109
pubmed: 32663279
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Sep;20 Suppl 4:73-86
pubmed: 19663953
Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Apr;22(3):1567-1578
pubmed: 29063382
J Adv Periodontol Implant Dent. 2020 Nov 17;12(2):65-71
pubmed: 35919749
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
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015 Mar 01;20(2):e231-8
pubmed: 25475779
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 Sep;65(9):1772-9
pubmed: 17719396
J Am Dent Assoc. 2015 Oct;146(10):735-42
pubmed: 26409983
Implant Dent. 2018 Feb;27(1):43-48
pubmed: 29341976
J Am Dent Assoc. 2015 Nov;146(11):808-19
pubmed: 26514886
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Feb;23 Suppl 5:39-66
pubmed: 22211305
Dent J (Basel). 2019 May 02;7(2):
pubmed: 31052495

Auteurs

Muhammad Ikbal (M)

School of Dentistry, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Department of Prosthodontic, Faculty of Dentistry, Hasanuddin University, Makassar, Indonesia.

Yen-Wen Shen (YW)

School of Dentistry, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Department of Dentistry, China Medical University and Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.

Muhammad Ruslin (M)

Department of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry Hasanuddin University, Makassar, Indonesia.

Lih-Jyh Fuh (LJ)

School of Dentistry, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Department of Dentistry, China Medical University and Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.

Jui-Ting Hsu (JT)

School of Dentistry, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Department of Bioinformatics and Medical Engineering, Asia University. Taichung, Taiwan.
Department of Biomedical Engineering, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.

Classifications MeSH