The Angle orthodontist · 2023
Mandibular alveolar bone thickness in untreated Class I subjects with different vertical skeletal patterns: a cone-beam computed tomography study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Formosa Joseph, Zou Min, Chung Chun-Hsi, Boucher Normand S, Li Chenshuang
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the mandibular alveolar bone thickness in untreated skeletal Class I subjects with different vertical skeletal patterns.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 50 preorthodontic treatment cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of a skeletal Class I Chinese population with near-normal occlusion were selected. The buccal and lingual alveolar bone thicknesses of mandibular canines to second molars were measured at 2 mm below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ), mid-root, and root apex levels. Differences in the measurements were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U-test. The correlation between alveolar bone thickness and the sella-nasion-mandibular plane (SN-MP) angle was calculated using Pearson correlation coefficients and linear regression analysis.
RESULTS: Buccal alveolar bone was thinner on all mandibular canines to first molars but thicker on second molars in comparison with lingual alveolar bone. Buccal alveolar bone was within 1 mm at the levels of 2 mm below CEJ and mid-root for the canines and first premolars. Significant differences were detected among subjects with different vertical patterns, with a negative correlation between the SN-MP angle and alveolar thickness, especially in the canine and premolar regions. The thinnest buccal and lingual alveolar bone were detected in the high-angle group canine region (0.50 mm at the levels of 2 mm below CEJ and mid-root for the buccal side, 0.90 mm at the level of 2 mm below the CEJ for the lingual side).
CONCLUSIONS: To avoid periodontal complications, buccal-lingual movement of the mandibular canines and first premolars should be limited, especially in high-angle patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 50 preorthodontic treatment cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of a skeletal Class I Chinese population with near-normal occlusion were selected. The buccal and lingual alveolar bone thicknesses of mandibular canines to second molars were measured at 2 mm below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ), mid-root, and root apex levels. Differences in the measurements were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U-test. The correlation between alveolar bone thickness and the sella-nasion-mandibular plane (SN-MP) angle was calculated using Pearson correlation coefficients and linear regression analysis.
RESULTS: Buccal alveolar bone was thinner on all mandibular canines to first molars but thicker on second molars in comparison with lingual alveolar bone. Buccal alveolar bone was within 1 mm at the levels of 2 mm below CEJ and mid-root for the canines and first premolars. Significant differences were detected among subjects with different vertical patterns, with a negative correlation between the SN-MP angle and alveolar thickness, especially in the canine and premolar regions. The thinnest buccal and lingual alveolar bone were detected in the high-angle group canine region (0.50 mm at the levels of 2 mm below CEJ and mid-root for the buccal side, 0.90 mm at the level of 2 mm below the CEJ for the lingual side).
CONCLUSIONS: To avoid periodontal complications, buccal-lingual movement of the mandibular canines and first premolars should be limited, especially in high-angle patients.