The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2019 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

A Cone-beam Computed Tomography Interpretation of Malar Bone Changes in Skeletal Malocclusion

Bhagabati P Dash, Rami Reddy, Pritam Mohanty, Nivedita Sahoo, Sonika Dash, Suravi Chatterjee

Keywords : Cone-beam computed tomography, Facial esthetics, Malar bone, Malocclusion

Citation Information : Dash BP, Reddy R, Mohanty P, Sahoo N, Dash S, Chatterjee S. A Cone-beam Computed Tomography Interpretation of Malar Bone Changes in Skeletal Malocclusion. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (11):1319-1322.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2680

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-11-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this cross-sectional study is to signify malar bone anatomy and to obtain linear correlation with varied skeletal pattern by utilizing cone beam computed tomographic views. Materials and methods: The experimental sample consisted of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of 30 patients taken for the purpose of orthodontic treatment and peri implant planning (16 males and 14 females), 11–30 years of age (mean, 23.4 years). The sex and age were documented for all samples and nine landmarks were evaluated. The various CBCT were categorized into different malocclusions based on wits appraisal. Its prevalence was collated with age, sex and various malocclusion by Chi-square test. Results: Age and gender altogether influenced M1. The mean posterior zygomatic bone width (M1) for all sample was 63.7 mm. For M1 estimations, no huge contrast was observed among left and right side (p = 0.915). The mean anteriorzygomatic bone width (M2) was 51.8 mm. No noteworthy contrast amongst two sides (p = 0.995) or age (p = 0.067) was seen. Although sex altogether influenced M3 variety (p = 0.003), the mean greatest cortical thickness (max CT) (M4) was 9.36 mm, significant difference was observed between the minimum cortical thickness of skeletal class I and skeletal class III malocclusion design. Conclusion: Detailed evaluation of malar bone should be performed prior to any ortho-surgical procedure using CBCT. Clinical significance: Our study signifies the importance of consideration of zygoma during any pre-treatment evaluation of skeletal malocclusion. It also marks the pivotal role of zygoma while considering gross facial esthetics. Precise assurance of zygomatic bone size may likewise aid the choice of fitting surgeries and determination of zygomatic implant area.


PDF Share
  1. Capote-Moreno AL, Naval-Gías L, Muñoz-Guerra MF, et al. Zygomatic distraction osteogenesis for correction of midfacial support after hemimaxillectomy: Experience and technical considerations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;71:e189–e197. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2012.11.019.
  2. Hinckley RK. Characterisation of malar deficiency in class I and class III individual using CBCT. Saint Louis University; 2012.
  3. Schmidseder J. Aesthetic dentistry. University of California Press; 2000.
  4. Akan S, Kocadereli I, Aktas A, et al. Effects of maxillary molar intrusion with zygomatic anchorage on the stomatognathic system in anterior open bite patients. Eur J Orthod 2013;35(1):93–102. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjr081.
  5. Uckan S, Senel F, Arman A, et al. Analysis of zygomatic miniplates for orthodontic skeletal anchorage and evaluation of this system by three-dimensional modelling and finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;36(11):1032. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2007. 08.247.
  6. Kaya, B, Arman, A, Uçkan S, et al. Comparison of the zygoma anchorage system with cervical headgear in buccal segment distalization. Eur J Orthod 2009;31(4):417–424. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjp016.
  7. Takamaru N, Nagai H, Ohe G, et al. Measurement of the zygomatic bone and pilot hole technique for safer insertion of zygomaticus implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;45:104–109. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2015.07.015.
  8. Furst IM, Austin P, Pharoah M, et al. The use of computed tomography to define zygomatic complex position. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;59:647–654. DOI: 10.1053/joms.2001.23394.
  9. Van Vlijmen OJ, Bergé SJ, Swennen GR, et al. Comparison of cephalometric radiographs obtained from cone-beam computed tomography scans and conventional radiographs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67(1):92–97. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2008.04.025.
  10. Uchida Y, Goto M, Katsuki T, et al. Measurement of the maxilla and zygoma as an aid in installing zygomatic implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;59:1193–1198. DOI: 10.1053/joms.2001.26725.
  11. Carter LC, Haller AD, Calamel AD, et al. Zygomatic air cell defect (ZACD) Prevalence and characteristic in a dental clinic outpatient population. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999;28:116–122. DOI: 10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600424.
  12. Groell R, Fleischmann B. The pneumatic spaces of the temporal bone: relationship to the temporomandibular joint. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999;28:69–72. DOI: 10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600414.
  13. Nascimento HAR, Visconti MAPG, Macedo PTS, et al. Evaluation of the zygomatic bone by cone beam computed tomography. Surg Radiol Anat 2015;37:55–60. DOI: 10.1007/s00276-014-1325-3.
  14. Kamburoglu K, Kolsuz E, Kurt H, et al. Accuracy of CBCT measurements of a human skull. J Digit Imaging 2011;24:787–793. DOI: 10.1007/s10278-010-9339-9.
  15. Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, et al. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: Preliminary results. Eur Radiol 1998;8:1558–1564. DOI: 10.1007/s003300050586.
  16. Terino EO. Alloplastic facial contouring by zonal principles of skeletal anatomy. Clin Plast Surg 1992;19(2):487–510.
  17. Seimeonow MZ, Sonmez E. Face as an organ: the functional anatomy of the face. The know-how of face transplantation. Ann Plast Surg 2008;61(3):345–352. DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e3181844ea3.
  18. Mendelson B, Wong CH. Changes in the facial skeleton with aging: implications and clinical applications in facial rejuvenation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012;36(4):753–760. DOI: 10.1007/s00266-012- 9904-3.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.