The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 6 ( June, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Microstructure around Impacted Maxillary Canines Using Fractal Analysis in Dravidian Population: A Retrospective CBCT Study

TR Prasanna Arvind, Ravindra Kumar Jain, Ravleen Nagi, Akriti Tiwari

Keywords : Bone density, Cone-beam computed tomography, Fractal dimension, Impaction, Maxillary canine

Citation Information : Arvind TP, Jain RK, Nagi R, Tiwari A. Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Microstructure around Impacted Maxillary Canines Using Fractal Analysis in Dravidian Population: A Retrospective CBCT Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (6):593-600.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3343

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 23-09-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: The aim of this study was to assess alveolar bone microstructure around impacted maxillary canines derived from fractal analysis. Materials and methods: The present study was a retrospective cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) study. In total, 61 scans (25 males, 36 females; age range – 12–28 years) were analyzed. About 64 × 64-pixel regions of interest (ROI) in the maxillary alveolar process containing trabecular bone between the premolars were selected. ImageJ software was utilized to process images and bone density was assessed by determining bone surface area (BSA) and bone marrow surface area (BMSA) for the impacted and nonimpacted sides separately. Selected fractals were plotted in a histogram using box-counting method and the results were tabulated. Paired t-tests were used to determine significant differences between the groups and gender differences. Results: For both buccally and palatally impacted maxillary canines, BSA was increased, BMSA decreased in the region of the impacted canine and the difference was statistically significant (p <0.05) in both genders. Bone fractal dimension (FD) values were greater in the region of the impacted canine for both buccally (1.47 > 1.21) and palatally (1.53 > 1.43) displaced canines, while bone marrow FD values were greater in the region of the nonimpacted canine for both buccally (1.37 > 1.28) and palatally displaced canines (1.41 > 1.33). Females had significantly higher BMSA than males around impacted canines (p <0.05). Conclusion: Denser bone microstructure was noted around impacted canines when compared with fully erupted canines. No gender-related differences were noted for BSA, whereas BMSA was higher in females implying lower bone density when compared with males. Clinical significance: Retrospective evaluation of bone microstructure surrounding unerupted/impacted canines can provide analytical information about treatment prognosis and anchorage considerations. With FD analysis of CBCT images, BSA and BMSA can be measured and bone density estimated in a reliable manner.

PDF Share
  1. Dachi SF, Howell FV. A survey of 3,874 routine full-mouth radiographs: II. A study of impacted teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1961;14(10):1165–1169. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(61)90204-3.
  2. Grover PS, Lorton L. The incidence of unerupted permanent teeth and related clinical cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1985;59(4):420–425. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(85)90070-2.
  3. Becker A, Chaushu S. Etiology of maxillary canine impaction: A review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;148(4):557–567. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.06.013.
  4. Ruíz-Mora GA, Arriola-Guillén LE, Rodríguez-Cárdenas YA, et al. Changes in alveolar bone morphology after traction of buccally vs palatally unilateral maxillary impacted canines: A cone-beam computed tomography study. Am J Orthodont Dentofacial Orthop 2021;159(3):258–270. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.01.022.
  5. Kokich VG. Preorthodontic uncovering and autonomous eruption of palatally impacted maxillary canines. Semin Orthod 2010;16(3):205–211. DOI: 10.1053/j.sodo.2010.05.008.
  6. Botticelli S, Verna C, Cattaneo PM, et al. Two-versus three-dimensional imaging in subjects with unerupted maxillary canines. Eur J Orthod 2011;33(4):344–349. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjq102.
  7. Mah JK, Alexandroni S. Cone-beam computed tomography in the management of impacted canines. Semin Orthod 2010;16(3):199–204. DOI: 10.1053/j.sodo.2010.05.007.
  8. 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 Orthodont Dentofacial Orthoped 2011;140(5):734–744. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.021.
  9. Scarfe WC, Angelopoulos C, editors. Maxillofacial Cone Beam Computed Tomography: Principles, Techniques and Clinical Applications. Springer; 2018.
  10. Servais JA, Gaalaas L, Lunos S, et al. Alternative cone-beam computed tomography method for the analysis of bone density around impacted maxillary canines. Am J Orthodont Dentofacial Orthop 2018;154(3):442–449. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.01.008.
  11. Gaalaas L, Henn L, Gaillard PR, et al. Analysis of trabecular bone using site-specific fractal values calculated from cone beam CT images. Oral Radiol 2014;30(2):179–185. DOI: 10.1007/s11282-013-0163-z.
  12. González-García R, Monje F. The reliability of cone-beam computed tomography to assess bone density at dental implant recipient sites: A histomorphometric analysis by micro-CT. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24(8):871–879. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02390.x.
  13. Cooke J, Wang HL. Canine impactions: incidence and management. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26(5):483–491. PMID: 17073358.
  14. Laganà G, Venza N, Borzabadi-Farahani A, et al. Dental anomalies: Prevalence and associations between them in a large sample of non-orthodontic subjects, a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health 2017;17(1):62. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-017-0352-y.
  15. Kau CH, Lee JJ, Souccar NM. The validation of a novel index assessing canine impactions. Eur J Dentist 2013;7(4):399–404. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.120648.
  16. Kim Y, Hyun HK, Jang KT. The position of maxillary canine impactions and the influenced factors to adjacent root resorption in the Korean population. Eur J Orthodont 2012;34(3):302–306. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjr002.
  17. Jarjoura K, Crespo P, Fine JB. Maxillary canine impactions: orthodontic and surgical management. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2002;23(1):23–26. PMID: 11887697.
  18. Baccetti T. A controlled study of associated dental anomalies. Angle Orthod 1998;68(3):267–274. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1998)068 <0267:ACSOAD>2.3.CO;2.
  19. Abazi Y, Guglielmo MF, Cenko F, et al. Analysis of bone density in a group of patients with dental inclusion. Balk J Dent Med 2019;23(3):141–146. DOI: 10.2478/bjdm-2019-0025.
  20. Seçgin CK, Karslıoğlu H, Özemre MÖ, et al. Gray value measurement for the evaluation of local alveolar bone density around impacted maxillary canine teeth using cone beam computed tomography. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2021;26(5):e669–e675. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.24677.
  21. Kwak KH, Kim SS, Kim YI, et al. Quantitative evaluation of midpalatal suture maturation via fractal analysis. Korean J Orthod 2016;46(5):323–330. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2016.46.5.323.
  22. Torres SR, Chen CS, Leroux BG, et al. Fractal dimension evaluation of cone beam computed tomography in patients with bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011;40(8):501–505. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/14636637.
  23. Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Pacifici A, et al. How accurate Is CBCT in measuring bone density? A comparative CBCT-CT in vitro study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014;16(4):471–478. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12027.
  24. Andruch K, Cecotka M. The use of relative voxel grey values in CBCT to evaluate radiological bone density in the mandible. Int J Dent Sci Res 2018;6(3):66–73. DOI: 10.12691/ijdsr-6-3-3.
  25. Chugh T, Jain AK, Jaiswal RK, et al. Bone density and its importance in orthodontics. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2013;3(2):92–97. DOI: 10.1016/j. jobcr.2013.01.001.
  26. Park HS, Lee YJ, Jeong SH, et al. Density of the alveolar and basal bones of the maxilla and the mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthoped 2008;133(1):30–37. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.044
  27. Babanouri N, Ajami S, Salehi P. Effect of mini-screw-facilitated micro-osteoperforation on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement: A single-center, split-mouth, randomized, controlled trial. Prog Orthod 2020;21(1):7. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-020-00306-8.
  28. Ma ZG, Yang C, Fang B, et al. Three-D imaging of dental alveolar bone change after fixed orthodontic treatment in patients with periodontitis. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015;8(2):2385–2391. PMCID: PMC4402824.
  29. Yu JH, Huang HL, Liu CF, et al. Does orthodontic treatment affect the alveolar bone density? Medicine 2016;95(10):e3080. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003080.
  30. Zhuang L, Bai Y, Meng X. Three-dimensional morphology of root and alveolar trabecular bone during tooth movement using micro-computed tomography. Angle Orthod 2011;81(3):420–425. DOI: 10.2319/071910-418.1.
  31. Bariani RCB, Milani R, Guimaraes Junior CH, et al. Orthodontic traction of impacted upper canines using the VISTA technique. J Clin Orthod 2017;51(2):76–85. PMID: 28380468.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.