Implant dentistry · 2012
Topographic analysis of maxillary premolars and molars and maxillary sinus using cone beam computed tomography.
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.
Yoshimine Shin-Ichiro, Nishihara Kazuhide, Nozoe Etsuro, Yoshimine Masako, Nakamura Norifumi
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the anatomical characteristics of the maxillary premolars and molars and the maxillary sinus using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for dental implant treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten linear items and 1 angular item on 30 sites in 30 patients were measured on 3-dimensional computed tomography images using CBCT. The vertical relationship between the maxillary sinus and the maxillary molars was classified into 5 categories.
RESULTS: The horizontal thickness of the buccal alveolar bone was thinnest on the maxillary first premolars, and the horizontal thickness of the palatal alveolar bone was thickest on the maxillary second molars. Type II was most common on the maxillary first molars. The internal angle at the maxillary premolars was significantly greater than that at the maxillary molars. The internal angle and vertical distance between the apex of the roots and the maxillary sinus floor showed a positive correlation on the maxillary first premolars (P = 0.003).
CONCLUSION: For the selection of an appropriate approach on dental implant treatment, the evaluation of maxillary premolars and molars using of CBCT can be recommended.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten linear items and 1 angular item on 30 sites in 30 patients were measured on 3-dimensional computed tomography images using CBCT. The vertical relationship between the maxillary sinus and the maxillary molars was classified into 5 categories.
RESULTS: The horizontal thickness of the buccal alveolar bone was thinnest on the maxillary first premolars, and the horizontal thickness of the palatal alveolar bone was thickest on the maxillary second molars. Type II was most common on the maxillary first molars. The internal angle at the maxillary premolars was significantly greater than that at the maxillary molars. The internal angle and vertical distance between the apex of the roots and the maxillary sinus floor showed a positive correlation on the maxillary first premolars (P = 0.003).
CONCLUSION: For the selection of an appropriate approach on dental implant treatment, the evaluation of maxillary premolars and molars using of CBCT can be recommended.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAgedAlveolar ProcessAnatomy, Cross-SectionalBicuspidCephalometryCone-Beam Computed TomographyDental ImplantsFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalMaleMaxillaMaxillary SinusMiddle AgedMolarOdontometryPalatePatient Care PlanningTooth ApexTooth CervixTooth RootYoung Adult