Anterior maxilla alveolar ridge dimension and morphology measurement by cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) for immediate implant treatment planning

BMC Oral Health

Robin Weltman³  Adam Skrypczak¹  Wenjian Zhang² 

[1] Junior Dental Student, The University of Texas School of Dentistry at Houston, 7500 Cambridge Street, Houston 77054, TX, USA;Department of Diagnostic and Biomedical Sciences, The University of Texas School of Dentistry at Houston, 7500 Cambridge Street, Houston 77054, TX, USA;Department of Periodontics and Dental Hygiene, The University of Texas School of Dentistry at Houston, 7500 Cambridge Street, Houston 77054, TX, USA

关键词: Implant;    Buccal undercut;    Alveolar ridge;    CBCT;    Anterior maxilla;   

Others  :  1212090
DOI  :  10.1186/s12903-015-0055-1

 received in 2015-03-02, accepted in 2015-06-03,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Implants have been widely used to restore missing teeth. Limited information on applied anatomy at the anterior maxilla compromises the clinical outcome for implant placement in this region. In the current study, Cone Beam Computerized Tomography (CBCT) was used to measure alveolar ridge and buccal undercut dimension at the anterior maxilla to help develop treatment planning for immediate implant placement.

Methods

CBCT scans were screened to include 51 subjects with full dentition at right maxilla. Measurements were taken at the cross sectional views in the middle of the maxillary right central incisor, lateral incisor, and canine regions. Alveolar height was measured from the alveolar crest to floor of nasal fossa. Alveolar width was measured from the buccal to palatal cortical plate at the coronal, middle, and apical third of the distance from the alveolar crest to floor of the nasal fossa. Buccal undercut location was measured from where the buccal cortical plate started dipping to a line extending at the alveolar crest that was perpendicular to the long axis of the alveolar ridge. The buccal undercut depth was measured from the deepest point of the undercut at the buccal plate to a line tangent to the buccal plate paralleling the long axis of ridge.

Results

Alveolar width increased from coronal to apical direction for each tooth. Mean alveolar widths (mm) were: central incisor, 9.55; lateral incisor, 8.30; canine, 9.62. The lateral incisor had a significantly smaller alveolar width than the other anterior teeth. No significant difference in ridge height was noted among the teeth. Undercut locations from the alveolar crest (mm) were: central incisor, 5.84; lateral incisor, 3.59; canine, 5.11. Undercut depths (mm) were: central incisor, 0.76; lateral incisor, 0.87; canine, 0.73. The percentages of teeth with buccal undercuts were: central incisor, 41 %, lateral incisor, 77 %, and canine 33 %. Male demonstrate significant larger ridge width compared with females for all three teeth.

Conclusions

At anterior maxilla, the lateral incisor has the thinnest alveolar bone, and most frequently exhibits a buccal undercut which is the closest to alveolar ridge compared with other maxillary anterior teeth.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Zhang et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 8.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Karoussis IK, Salvi GE, Heitz-Mayfield LJ, Bragger U, Hammerle CH, Lang NP. Long-term implant prognosis in patients with and without a history of chronic periodontitis: a 10-year prospective cohort study of the ITI Dental Implant System. Clinical oral implants research. 2003; 14(3):329-339.
• [2]Romeo E, Lops D, Amorfini L, Chiapasco M, Ghisolfi M, Vogel G. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of small-diameter (3.3-mm) implants followed for 1–7 years: a longitudinal study. Clinical oral implants research. 2006; 17(2):139-148.
• [3]Romeo E, Lops D, Margutti E, Ghisolfi M, Chiapasco M, Vogel G. Long-term survival and success of oral implants in the treatment of full and partial arches: a 7-year prospective study with the ITI dental implant system. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2004; 19(2):247-259.
• [4]Wennstrom JL, Ekestubbe A, Grondahl K, Karlsson S, Lindhe J. Oral rehabilitation with implant-supported fixed partial dentures in periodontitis-susceptible subjects. A 5-year prospective study. J Clin Periodontol. 2004; 31(9):713-724.
• [5]Wennstrom JL, Ekestubbe A, Grondahl K, Karlsson S, Lindhe J. Implant-supported single-tooth restorations: a 5-year prospective study. J Clin Periodontol. 2005; 32(6):567-574.
• [6]de Oliveira RC, Leles CR, Normanha LM, Lindh C, Ribeiro-Rotta RF. Assessments of trabecular bone density at implant sites on CT images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008; 105(2):231-238.
• [7]Eufinger H, Konig S, Eufinger A, Machtens E: [Significance of the height and width of the alveolar ridge in implantology in the edentulous maxilla. Analysis of 95 cadaver jaws and 24 consecutive patients]. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir 1999, 3 Suppl 1:S14-18.
• [8]Roze J, Babu S, Saffarzadeh A, Gayet-Delacroix M, Hoornaert A, Layrolle P. Correlating implant stability to bone structure. Clinical oral implants research. 2009; 20(10):1140-1145.
• [9]Harris D, Buser D, Dula K, Grondahl K, Haris D, Jacobs R et al.. E.A.O. Guidelines fo the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry. A consensus workshop organized by the european association for osseointegration in trinity college Dublin. Clinical oral implants research. 2002; 13(5):566-570.
• [10]Garg AK, Vicari A. Radiographic modalities for diagnosis and treatment planning in implant dentistry. Implant Soc. 1995; 5(5):7-11.
• [11]Benavides E, Rios HF, Ganz SD, An CH, Resnik R, Reardon GT et al.. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: the international congress of oral implantologists consensus report. Implant Dent. 2012; 21(2):78-86.
• [12]Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC. American academy of O, maxillofacial R: position statement of the american academy of oral and maxillofacial radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012; 113(6):817-826.
• [13]Carrafiello G, Dizonno M, Colli V, Strocchi S, Pozzi Taubert S, Leonardi A et al.. Comparative study of jaws with multislice computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography. Radiol Med. 2010; 115(4):600-611.
• [14]Kobayashi K, Shimoda S, Nakagawa Y, Yamamoto A. Accuracy in measurement of distance using limited cone-beam computerized tomography. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2004; 19(2):228-231.
• [15]Silva MA, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Bumann A, Visser H, Hirsch E. Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133(5):640-e641.
• [16]Sukovic P. Cone beam computed tomography in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2003; 6 Suppl 1:31-36.
• [17]Loubele M, Van Assche N, Carpentier K, Maes F, Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D et al.. Comparative localized linear accuracy of small-field cone-beam CT and multislice CT for alveolar bone measurements. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008; 105(4):512-518.
• [18]Menezes CC, Janson G, Massaro CS, Cambiaghi L, Garib DG. Reproducibility of bone plate thickness measurements with Cone-Beam Computed Tomography using different image acquisition protocols. Dental Press J Orthod. 2010; 15(5):143-149.
• [19]Batenburg RH, Stellingsma K, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A. Bone height measurements on panoramic radiographs: the effect of shape and position of edentulous mandibles. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1997; 84(4):430-435.
• [20]Choi YG, Kim YK, Eckert SE, Shim CH. Cross-sectional study of the factors that influence radiographic magnification of implant diameter and length. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2004; 19(4):594-596.
• [21]Correa LR, Spin-Neto R, Stavropoulos A, Schropp L, da Silveira HE, Wenzel A. Planning of dental implant size with digital panoramic radiographs, CBCT-generated panoramic images, and CBCT cross-sectional images. Clinical oral implants research. 2014; 25(6):690-695.
• [22]Wakimoto M, Matsumura T, Ueno T, Mizukawa N, Yanagi Y, Iida S. Bone quality and quantity of the anterior maxillary trabecular bone in dental implant sites. Clinical oral implants research. 2012; 23(11):1314-1319.
• [23]Eufinger H, Konig S, Eufinger A. The role of alveolar ridge width in dental implantology. Clin Oral Investig. 1997; 1(4):169-177.
• [24]Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog Journal of clinical periodontology. 2005; 32(2):212-218.
• [25]Araujo MG, Wennstrom JL, Lindhe J. Modeling of the buccal and lingual bone walls of fresh extraction sites following implant installation. Clinical oral implants research. 2006; 17(6):606-614.
• [26]Cardaropoli G, Araujo M, Hayacibara R, Sukekava F, Lindhe J. Healing of extraction sockets and surgically produced - augmented and non-augmented - defects in the alveolar ridge. An experimental study in the dog Journal of clinical periodontology. 2005; 32(5):435-440.
• [27]Ferrus J, Cecchinato D, Pjetursson EB, Lang NP, Sanz M, Lindhe J. Factors influencing ridge alterations following immediate implant placement into extraction sockets. Clinical oral implants research. 2010; 21(1):22-29.
• [28]Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry. 2003; 23(4):313-323.
• [29]Braut V, Bornstein MM, Lauber R, Buser D. Bone dimensions in the posterior mandible: a retrospective radiographic study using cone beam computed tomography. Part 1--analysis of dentate sites. The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry. 2012; 32(2):175-184.
• [30]Belser UC, Buser D, Hess D, Schmid B, Bernard JP, Lang NP. Aesthetic implant restorations in partially edentulous patients--a critical appraisal. Periodontology 2000. 1998; 17:132-150.
• [31]Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2004; 19 Suppl:43-61.
• [32]Braut V, Bornstein MM, Belser U, Buser D. Thickness of the anterior maxillary facial bone wall-a retrospective radiographic study using cone beam computed tomography. The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry. 2011; 31(2):125-131.
• [33]Grunder U, Gracis S, Capelli M. Influence of the 3-D bone-to-implant relationship on esthetics. The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry. 2005; 25(2):113-119.
• [34]Huynh-Ba G, Pjetursson BE, Sanz M, Cecchinato D, Ferrus J, Lindhe J et al.. Analysis of the socket bone wall dimensions in the upper maxilla in relation to immediate implant placement. Clinical oral implants research. 2010; 21(1):37-42.
• [35]White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology principles and interpretation. 6th ed. Mosby Elsevier, St. Louis, Missouri; 2009.
• [36]Watanabe H, Mohammad Abdul M, Kurabayashi T, Aoki H. Mandible size and morphology determined with CT on a premise of dental implant operation. Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA. 2010; 32(4):343-349.
• [37]Chan HL, Benavides E, Yeh CY, Fu JH, Rudek IE, Wang HL. Risk assessment of lingual plate perforation in posterior mandibular region: a virtual implant placement study using cone-beam computed tomography. J Periodontol. 2011; 82(1):129-135.