The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2015 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Evaluation of Bone Thickness and Density in the Lower Incisors’ Region in Adults with Different Types of Skeletal Malocclusion using Cone-beam Computed Tomography

Mohammad Y Hajeer, Maram MN Al-Masri, Mowaffak A Ajaj, Muataz S Al-Eed

Citation Information : Hajeer MY, Al-Masri MM, Ajaj MA, Al-Eed MS. Evaluation of Bone Thickness and Density in the Lower Incisors’ Region in Adults with Different Types of Skeletal Malocclusion using Cone-beam Computed Tomography. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015; 16 (8):630-637.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1733

Published Online: 01-08-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the bone thickness and density in the lower incisors’ region in orthodontically untreated adults, and to examine any possible relationship between thickness and density in different skeletal patterns using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Materials and methods

The CBCT records of 48 patients were obtained from the archive of orthodontic department comprising three groups of malocclusion (class I, II and III) with 16 patients in each group. Using OnDemand 3D® software, sagittal sections were made for each lower incisor. Thicknesses and densities were measured at three levels of the root (cervical, middle and apical regions) from the labial and lingual sides. Accuracy and reliability tests were undertaken to assess the intraobserver reliability and to detect systematic error. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to detect significant differences among the three groups of skeletal malocclusion.

Results

Apical buccal thickness (ABT) in the four incisors was higher in class II and I patients than in class III patients (p < 0.05). There were significant differences between buccal and lingual surfaces at the apical and middle regions only in class II and III patients. Statistical differences were found between class I and II patients for the cervical buccal density (CBD) and between class II and III patients for apical buccal density (ABD). Relationship between bone thickness and density values ranged from strong at the cervical regions to weak at the apical regions.

Conclusions

Sagittal skeletal patterns affect apical bone thickness and density at buccal surfaces of the four lower incisors’ roots. Alveolar bone thickness and density increased from the cervical to the apical regions.

How to cite this article

Al-Masri MMN, Ajaj MA, Hajeer MY, Al-Eed MS. Evaluation of Bone Thickness and Density in the Lower Incisors’ Region in Adults with Different Types of Skeletal Malocclusion using Cone-beam Computed Tomography. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(8):630-637.


PDF Share
  1. An approach to maintain orthodontic alignment of lower incisors without the use of retainers. Eur J Orthod 2005 Jun;27(3):209-214.
  2. Periodontal status of mandibular central incisors after orthodontic proclination in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006 Jul;130(1):6e1-8.
  3. The effect of antero-postero incisor repositioning on the palatal cortex as studied with laminagraphy. J Clin Orthod 1976 Nov;10(11):804-822.
  4. Biological reaction of alveolar bone to orthodontic tooth movement. Angle Orthod 1999 Apr;69(2):151-158.
  5. Initial tissue behavior during apical root resorption. Angle Orthod 1974 Jan;44(1):68-82.
  6. The anterior alveolus: its importance in limiting orthodontic treatment and its influence on the occurrence of iatrogenic sequelae. Angle Orthod 1996;66(2): 95-109.
  7. Evaluation of labio-lingual bony support of lower incisors in orthodontically untreated adults with the help of computed tomography. J Orofac Orthop 1999;60(5):321-334.
  8. The limitations of tooth movement within the symphysis, studied with laminagraphy and standardized occlusal films. J Clin Orthod 1976 Dec;10(12):882-893.
  9. Three-dimensional interpretation of labiolingual bone width of the lower incisors. Part II. J Orofac Orthop 1996 Jun;57(3):168-185.
  10. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol 2009 Sep;71(3):461-468.
  11. Three-dimensional interpretation of periodontal lesions and remodeling during orthodontic treatment. Part III. J Orofac Orthop 1996 Aug;57(4):224-237.
  12. Accuracy of measurements of mandibular anatomy in cone beam computed tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007 Apr;103(4):534-542.
  13. Comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007 Jul;36(5):263-269.
  14. Faciolingual tooth movement: its influence on the root and cortical plate. Am J Orthod 1973 Sep;64(3):278-302.
  15. Facio-lingual width of the alveolar base. Aust Orthod J 2003 Apr;19(1):1-11.
  16. Bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion: traits and orthodontic correction. Angle Orthod 2005 May;75(3):333-339.
  17. Alveolar bone loss around incisors in surgical skeletal Class III patients. Angle Orthod 2009 Jul;79(4):676-682.
  18. Alveolar bone thickness and lower incisor position in skeletal Class I and Class II malocclusions assessed with cone-beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod 2013 Jun;43(3):134-140.
  19. Quantitative determination of alveolar bone density using digital image analysis of microradiographs. Anat Anz 1990;170(3-4):171-179.
  20. Quantitative computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 2009 Sep;71(3):415-424.
  21. Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography): Part I. Description of system. Br J Radiol 1995 Nov;68(815):H166-172.
  22. Correlation between bone mineral density measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and hounsfield units measured by diagnostic CT in Lumbar Spine. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2013 Nov;54(5):384-389.
  23. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 2009 Nov;41(4):1149-1160.
  24. Application of the ‘Wits’ appraisal. Am J Orthod 1976 Aug;70(2):179-189.
  25. The relation of maxillary structures to cranium in malocclusion and in normal occlusion. The Angle Orthodontist 1952;22(3):142-145.
  26. Bone classification, training keys to implant success. Dent Today 1989 May;8(4):39-44.
  27. Correlation between mandibular central incisor proclination and gingival recession during fixed appliance therapy. Angle Orthod 2002 Jun;72(3):238-245.
  28. Orthodontics: Current Principles and Techniques. 4th ed. Bone physiology, metabolism, and biomechanics in orthodontic practice; St Louis: Mosby; 2005. p. 221-292.
  29. The association between bone mineral density and periodontitis in Korean adults (KNHANES 2008- 2010). Oral Dis 2014 Sep;20(6):609-615.
  30. Different skeletal types underlying Class III malocclusion in a random population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009 Nov;136(5):715-721.
  31. Anteroposterior and vertical components of class II division 1 and division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2009 Sep;79(5):859-866.
  32. Comparison of alveolar bone loss around incisors in normal occlusion samples and surgical skeletal class III patients. Angle Orthod 2012 Jul;82(4):645-652.
  33. Evaluation of the alveolar process of mandibular incisor in class I, II and III Individuals with different facial patterns. UNOPAR Cient Ciênc Biol Saúde 2012;14(2):95-98.
  34. Evaluation of the accuracy of linear measurements on lateral cephalograms obtained from cone-beam computed tomography scans with digital lateral cephalometric radiography: an in vitro study. J Craniofac Surg 2014 Sep;25(5):1710-1713.
  35. Alveolar bone loss around incisors in Class I bidentoalveolar protrusion patients: a retrospective threedimensional cone beam CT study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012 Sep;41(6):481-488.
  36. Bone tissue amount related to upper incisors inclination. Angle Orthod 2014 Mar;84(2):279-285.
  37. Avaliação da densidade óssea para instalação de mini-implantes (Evaluation of bone density for mini-implant placement). Dent Press J Orthod 2010;15:e1-9.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.