The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Comparison between Characteristics of Maxillary Right and Left Central Incisors: A Cone-beam Computed Tomography Study

Amal I Linjawi

Citation Information : Linjawi AI. Comparison between Characteristics of Maxillary Right and Left Central Incisors: A Cone-beam Computed Tomography Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (7):723-727.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2874

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-10-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Aim: To compare the angulation of maxillary left (UL) and right (UR) incisors and the width of alveolar bone. Materials and methods: This study was conducted using archived cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of 50 male and 50 female patients. The UL and UR incisors were compared in terms of incisor/palatal plane angle, collum angle, labiopalatal crown-root position, and alveolar bone width (ABW). The comparison, with reference to gender and age, was analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and independent sample t test. Results: There is no substantial variance in the average differences of the assessed variables for UR and UL central incisors (p > 0.05). No significant association was found between crown labial to root and root labial to crown positions for both central incisors (p > 0.05). Statistical analyses revealed that tooth type has no significant association with the central incisors-related variables. Alveolar bone width, at various areas assessed, showed significant relation to gender. On the other hand, incisor/palatal plane angle and ABW at the cementoenamel junction and at level of Point A (subnasale) were significantly affected by age. Conclusion: Gender can significantly affect the development of ABW. Also, incisor/palatal plane angle and ABW at certain areas are correlated with age. Clinical significance: Understanding the similarities or differences between right and left maxillary central incisors may give better indication if cephalometric images are accurate in attaining such measurements. This in turn will also help orthodontist to choose the proper tool for treatment decision-making related to incisor tooth movement.

  1. 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(4):645–652. DOI: 10.2319/070111-424.1.
  2. Nahm KY, Kang JH, Moon SC, et al. Alveolar bone loss around incisors in Class I bidentoalveolar protrusion patients: A retrospective three-dimensional cone beam CT study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012;41(6):481–488. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/30845402.
  3. Tian YL, Liu F, Sun HJ, et al. Alveolar bone thickness around maxillary central incisors of different inclination assessed with cone-beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod 2015;45(5):245–252. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2015.45.5.245.
  4. Kapila S, Conley RS, Harrell Jr WE. The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011;40(1):24–34. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/12615645.
  5. Shortliffe E, Perreault LE, Wiederhold G, et al. Medical informatics: Computer applications in health care and biomedicine. 2nd ed., New York: Springer; 2001.
  6. Zamora N, Llamas JM, Cibrián R, et al. Cephalometric measurements from 3D reconstructed images compared with conventional 2D images. Angle Orthod 2011;81(5):856–864. DOI: 10.2319/121210-717.1.
  7. Lupi JE, Handelman CS, Sadowsky C. Prevalence and severity of apical root resorption and alveolar bone loss in orthodontically treated adults. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996;109(1):28–37. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70160-9.
  8. Fuhrmann R. Three-dimensional interpretation of labiolingual bone width of the lower incisors. Part II. J Orofac Orthop 1996;57(3):168–185. DOI: 10.1007/BF02191880.
  9. Leung CC, Palomo L, Griffith R, et al. Accuracy and reliability of cone-beam computed tomography for measuring alveolar bone height and detecting bony dehiscences and fenestrations. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2010;137(4 Suppl):S109–S119. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.07.013.
  10. Timock AM, Cook V, McDonald T, et al. Accuracy and reliability of buccal bone height and thickness measurements from cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Am J Orthod. Dentofac Orthop. 2011;140(5):734–744. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.021.
  11. Zhou Z, Chen W, Shen M, et al. Cone beam computed tomographic analyses of alveolar bone anatomy at the maxillary anterior region in Chinese adults. J Biomed Res 2014;28(6):498–505.
  12. Braut V, Bornstein MM, Belser U, et al. Thickness of the anterior maxillary facial bone wall—A retrospective radiographic study using cone beam computed tomography. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2011;31(2):125–131.
  13. Lee JE, Jung CY, Kim Y, et al. Analysis of alveolar bone morphology of the maxillary central and lateral incisors with normal occlusion. Medicina 2019;55(9):565. DOI: 10.3390/medicina55090565.
  14. Lee JE, Lee YJ, Jin SH, et al. Topographic analysis of the mandibular symphysis in a normal occlusion population using cone-beam computed tomography. Exp Ther Med 2015;10(6):2150–2156. DOI: 10.3892/etm.2015.2842.
  15. Fu JH, Wang HL. Reliability of volumetric imaging software for cone-beam computed tomography – Influence of medical education. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013;22:182–186.
  16. Panda M, Shankar T, Raut A, et al. Cone beam computerized tomography evaluation of incisive canal and anterior maxillary bone thickness for placement of immediate implants. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2018;18(4):356–363. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_167_18.
  17. Yu Q, Pan XG, Ji GP, et al. The association between lower incisal inclination and morphology of the supporting alveolar bone -- A cone-beam CT study. Int J Oral Sci 2009;1(4):217–223. DOI: 10.4248/IJOS09047.
  18. Zhang W, Skrypczak A, Weltman R. Anterior maxilla alveolar ridge dimension and morphology measurement by cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) for immediate implant treatment planning. BMC Oral Health 2015;15:65. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-015-0055-1.
  19. Uner DD, Izol BS, Gorus Z. Correlation between buccal and alveolar bone widths at the central incisors according to cone-beam-computed tomography. Niger J Clin Pract 2019;22(1):79–84.
  20. Nowzari H, Molayem S, Chiu CH, et al. Cone beam computed tomographic measurement of maxillary central incisors to determine prevalence of facial alveolar bone width =>2 mm. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14(4):595–602. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00287.x.
  21. Artzi Z, Nemcovsky CE, Bitlitum I, et al. Displacement of the incisive foramen in conjunction with implant placement in the anterior maxilla without jeopardizing vitality of nasopalatine nerve and vessels: A novel surgical approach. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11(5):505–510. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011005505.x.
  22. Mardinger O, Namani-Sadan N, Chaushu G, et al. Morphologic changes of the nasopalatine canal related to dental implantation: A radiologic study in different degrees of absorbed maxillae. J Periodontol 2008;79(9):1659–1662. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2008. 080043.
  23. Tözüm TF, Güncü GN, Yıldırım YD, et al. Evaluation of maxillary incisive canal characteristics related to dental implant treatment with computerized tomography: A clinical multicenter study. J. Periodontol. 2012;83(3):337–343. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2011.110326.
  24. Sangcharearn Y, Ho C. Effect of Incisor Angulation on Overjet and Overbite in Class II Camouflage Treatment. A typodont study. Angle Orthod 2007;77(6):1011–1018. DOI: 10.2319/111206-460.1.
  25. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, et al. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: A clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int. J. Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003;23(4):313–323.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.