J Periodontal Implant Sci.  2012 Oct;42(5):173-178. 10.5051/jpis.2012.42.5.173.

The thickness of alveolar bone at the maxillary canine and premolar teeth in normal occlusion

• Jin SH
• Park JB
• Kim N
• Park S
• Kim KJ
• Kim Y
• Kook YA
• Ko Y

• KMID: 2212077
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2012.42.5.173

Abstract

PURPOSE
The main purpose of this study was to investigate bone thickness on the buccal and palatal aspects of the maxillary canine and premolars using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). The differences between left- and right-side measurements and between males and females were also analyzed.
METHODS
The sample consisted of 20 subjects (9 males and 11 females; mean age, 21.9+/-3.0) selected from the normal occlusion sample data in the Department of Orthodontics, The Catholic University of Korea. The thickness of the buccal and palatal bone walls, perpendicular to the long axis of the root were evaluated at 3 mm and 5 mm apical to cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and at root apex.
RESULTS
At the canines and first premolars regions, mean buccal bone thickness of at 3 mm and 5 mm apical to CEJ were less than 2 mm. In contrast, at the second premolar region, mean buccal bone thickness at 3 mm and 5 mm apical from CEJ were greater than 2 mm. Frequency of thick bone wall (> or =2 mm) increased from the canine to the second premolar.
CONCLUSIONS
This result should be considered before tooth extraction and planning of rehabilitation in the canine and premolar area of maxilla. Careful preoperative analysis with CBCT may be beneficial to assess local risk factors and to achieve high predictability of success in implant therapy.

Keyword

Alveolar bone loss; Bicuspid; Cone-beam computed tomography; Cuspid; Dental implants

MeSH Terms

Alveolar Bone Loss
Axis, Cervical Vertebra
Bicuspid
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Cuspid
Dental Implants
Female
Humans
Korea
Male
Maxilla
Orthodontics
Risk Factors
Tooth
Tooth Cervix
Tooth Extraction
Dental Implants

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 (A) Buccal bone thickness of canine at 3 mm and 5 mm from the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and at the root apex. (B) Buccal bone thickness of the premolar at 3 mm and 5 mm from the CEJ and at the root apex. (C) The buccal cusp and buccal root apex were used as the long axis line when two roots existed.

• 

  Figure 2 Frequency distribution (%) of thick buccal bone at 3 mm from the CEJ.

• 

  Figure 3 Frequency distribution (%) of thick buccal bone at 5 mm from the CEJ.

• 

  Figure 4 Frequency distribution (%) of thick buccal bone at the root apex.

Reference

1. Bhola M, Neely AL, Kolhatkar S. Immediate implant placement: clinical decisions, advantages, and disadvantages. J Prosthodont. 2008. 17:576–581.

2. Attard NJ, Zarb GA. Immediate and early implant loading protocols: a literature review of clinical studies. J Prosthet Dent. 2005. 94:242–258.

3. Werbitt MJ, Goldberg PV. The immediate implant: bone preservation and bone regeneration. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1992. 12:206–217.

4. Barzilay I. Immediate implants: their current status. Int J Prosthodont. 1993. 6:169–175.

5. Froum SJ. Immediate placement of implants into extraction sockets: rationale, outcomes, technique. Alpha Omegan. 2005. 98:20–35.

6. Covani U, Cornelini R, Barone A. Bucco-lingual bone remodeling around implants placed into immediate extraction sockets: a case series. J Periodontol. 2003. 74:268–273.

7. Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Hard-tissue alterations following immediate implant placement in extraction sites. J Clin Periodontol. 2004. 31:820–828.

8. Araujo MG, Sukekava F, Wennstrom JL, Lindhe J. Ridge alterations following implant placement in fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 2005. 32:645–652.

9. Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 2005. 32:212–218.

10. Qahash M, Susin C, Polimeni G, Hall J, Wikesjo UM. Bone healing dynamics at buccal peri-implant sites. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008. 19:166–172.

11. Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 2: clinical applications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009. 30:1285–1292.

12. Kaya S, Adiguzel O, Yavuz I, Tumen EC, Akkus Z. Cone-beam dental computerized tomography for evaluating changes of aging in the dimensions central superior incisor root canals. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011. 16:e463–e466.

13. Howerton WB Jr, Mora MA. Advancements in digital imaging: what is new and on the horizon? J Am Dent Assoc. 2008. 139:Suppl. 20S–24S.

14. Yilmaz HG, Tozum TF. Are gingival phenotype, residual ridge height, and membrane thickness critical for the perforation of maxillary sinus? J Periodontol. 2012. 83:420–425.

15. 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. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2011. 31:125–131.

16. Januario AL, Duarte WR, Barriviera M, Mesti JC, Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimension of the facial bone wall in the anterior maxilla: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011. 22:1168–1171.

17. Ghassemian M, Nowzari H, Lajolo C, Verdugo F, Pirronti T, D'Addona A. The thickness of facial alveolar bone overlying healthy maxillary anterior teeth. J Periodontol. 2012. 83:187–197.

18. Bernstein DP, Fink L, Handelsman L, Foote J, Lovejoy M, Wenzel K, et al. Initial reliability and validity of a new retrospective measure of child abuse and neglect. Am J Psychiatry. 1994. 151:1132–1136.

19. Kim Y, Park JU, Kook YA. Alveolar bone loss around incisors in surgical skeletal Class III patients. Angle Orthod. 2009. 79:676–682.

20. Kook YA, Kim G, Kim Y. Comparison of alveolar bone loss around incisors in normal occlusion samples and surgical skeletal class III patients. Angle Orthod. 2012. 82:645–652.

21. Spray JR, Black CG, Morris HF, Ochi S. The influence of bone thickness on facial marginal bone response: stage 1 placement through stage 2 uncovering. Ann Periodontol. 2000. 5:119–128.

22. Cho YB, Moon SJ, Chung CH, Kim HJ. Resorption of labial bone in maxillary anterior implant. J Adv Prosthodont. 2011. 3:85–89.

23. Funato A, Salama MA, Ishikawa T, Garber DA, Salama H. Timing, positioning, and sequential staging in esthetic implant therapy: a four-dimensional perspective. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2007. 27:313–323.

24. Salama H, Salama MA, Garber D, Adar P. The interproximal height of bone: a guidepost to predictable aesthetic strategies and soft tissue contours in anterior tooth replacement. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1998. 10:1131–1141.

25. Gelb DA. Immediate implant surgery: three-year retrospective evaluation of 50 consecutive cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993. 8:388–399.

26. Lazzara RJ. Immediate implant placement into extraction sites: surgical and restorative advantages. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1989. 9:332–343.

27. Prathibha Rani RM, Mahima VG, Patil K. Bucco-lingual dimension of teeth: an aid in sex determination. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2009. 1:88–92.