Comparison of mandibular anterior alveolar bone thickness in different facial skeletal types

Yoon-Soo Kim; Jung-Yul Cha; Hyung-Seog Yu; Chung-Ju Hwang

doi:10.4041/kjod.2010.40.5.314

Journal List > Korean J Orthod > v.40(5) > 1043637

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim, Cha, Yu, and Hwang: Comparison of mandibular anterior alveolar bone thickness in different facial skeletal types

Original Article

Korean Journal of Orthodontics

Korean Journal of Orthodontics 2010; 40(5): 314-324.

Published online: 31 October 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2010.40.5.314

Comparison of mandibular anterior alveolar bone thickness in different facial skeletal types

Yoon-Soo Kim, DDS, MSD^a, Jung-Yul Cha, DDS, MSD, PhD^b, Hyung-Seog Yu, DDS, MSD, PhD^c, Chung-Ju Hwang, DDS, MSD, PhD^d

^aGraduate Srudent, Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentisrty, Yonsei University, Korea.

^bAssistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentisrty, Yonsei University, Korea.

^cAssociate Professor, Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentisrty, Yonsei University, Korea.

^dProfessor, Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentisrty, Yonsei University, Korea.

Corresponding author: Chung-Ju Hwang. Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentisrty, Yonsei University, 250 Seongsan-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-752, Korea. +82 2 2228 3106; hwang@yuhs.ac.

Received 3 May 2010 Revised 13 July 2010 Accepted 19 July 2010

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to determine differences of mandibular anterior alveolar bone thickness and symphysial cross sectional area in 9 different horizontal and vertical facial types.

Methods

By using the initial cephalometric radiographs of 270 adult patients (male 135, female 135), the authors measured the buccolingual thickness of anterior alveolar bone on the basis of the root axis and symphysial cross sectional distance.

Results

The high angle group showed significantly thinner buccolingual alveolar bone width except for the CEJ area and lingual alveolar bone width (p < 0.05). The low angle group and Class I, II average group showed similar or significantly thicker alveolar bone width than the Class I average group (p < 0.05). The Class III average group showed significantly thinner buccolingual and lingual alveolar bone width than Class I and II average groups (p < 0.05). The Class III high angle group showed minimal alveolar bone width in all facial skeletal types. No significant difference was found in the symphysial cross sectional area of the different vertical facial skeletal types (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

The results of this study found that Class III high angle patients have thinner mandibular anterior alveolar bone thickness; therefore, more attention will be needed to determine the incisor position during orthodontic treatment for this group of patients.

Keywords: Facial skeletal type, Mandibular anterior alveolar bone width, Symphysial cross section, Adult patient

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1

Measurement of mandibular alveolar bone width and dimension. T1T, Buccolingual width (mm) of mandibular anterior alveolar bone at 2 mm under CEJ; T2T, buccolingual width (mm) of mandibular alveolar bone at middle of root; T3T, buccolingual width (mm) of mandibular alveolar bone at 2 mm over root apex; T1L, lingual alveolar bone thickness (mm) of mandible at 2 mm under CEJ; T2L, lingual alveolar bone thickness (mm) of mandible at middle of root; T3L, lingual alveolar bone thickness (mm) of mandible at 2 mm over root apex; T1B, buccal alveolar bone thickness (mm) of mandible at 2 mm under CEJ; T2B, buccal alveolar bone thickness (mm) of mandible at middle of root; T3B, buccal alveolar bone thickness (mm) of mandible at 2 mm over root apex; S, symphysial cross sectional area (mm²) of including root area.

Fig. 2

Buccal and lingual cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) on cephalometric X-ray film.

Fig. 3

Error bar graph (Mean ± SD) of buccolingual alveolar bone width at midroot (T2T) and root apex (T3T). ^*Significant at the significance level of 0.05; ^†significant at the significance level of 0.01.

Fig. 4

Error bar graph (Mean ± SD) of lingual alveolar bone width at CEJ (T1L), midroot (T2L), and root apex (T3L). ^*Significant at the significance level of 0.01.

Table 1

Comparison of age (year), ANB (degree), SN-MP (degree) of subjects in nine subgroups (Mean ± SD)

SD, Standard deviation.

Table 2

Frequency distribution table of age

Table 3

Comparison of IMPA (degree) of subjects in nine subgroups (Mean ± SD)

^*Significant at the significance level of 0.05; ^†significant at the significance level of 0.01.

Table 4

Comparison of measurements of Class I, II, III groups (Mean ± SD)

NS, Not significant; ^*Significant at the significance level of 0.05; ^†significant at the significance level of 0.01.

Table 5

Group comparison of measurements for low angle, average, high angle groups (Mean ± SD)

NS, Not significant; ^*Significant at the significance level of 0.05; ^†significant at the significance level of 0.01.

References

1. Edwards JG. A study of the anterior portion of the palate as it relates to orthodontic therapy. Am J Orthod. 1976. 69:249–273.

2. Ten Hoeve A, Mulie RM. The effect of antero-postero incisor repositioning on the palatal cortex as studied with laminagraphy. J Clin Orthod. 1976. 10:804–822.

3. Handelman CS. The anterior alveolar: its importance in limiting orthodontic treatment and its influence on the occurrence of iatrogenic sequelae. Angle Orthod. 1996. 66:95–109.

4. Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL. Orthodontics: current principles and techniques. 1994. 2nd ed. St Louis: Mosby.

5. Wehrbein H, Bauer W, Diedrich P. Mandibular incisors, alveolar bone, and symphysis after orthodontic treatment. A retrospective study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996. 110:239–246.

6. Vardimon AD, Oren E, Ben-Bassat Y. Cortical bone remodeling/tooth movement ratio during maxillary incisor retraction with tip versus torque movements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998. 114:520–529.

7. Choe HY, Park W, Jeon JK, Kim YH, Shon BW. Differences in mandibular anterior alveolar bone thickness according to age in a normal skeletal group. Korean J Orthod. 2007. 37:220–230.

8. Sarikaya S, Haydar B, Ciğer S, Ariyürek M. Changes in alveolar bone thickness due to retraction of anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002. 122:15–26.

9. Wainwright WM. Faciolingual tooth movement: its influence on the root and cortical plate. Am J Orthod. 1973. 64:278–302.

10. Remmelink HJ, van der Molen AL. Effect of anteroposterior incisor repositioning on the root and cortical plate: a follow-up study. J Clin Orthod. 1984. 18:42–49.

11. Wehrbein H, Fuhrmann RA, Diedrich PR. Periodontal conditions after facial root tipping and palatal root torque of incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994. 106:455–462.

12. Gündüz E, Rodríguez-Torres C, Gahleitner A, Heissenberger G, Bantleon HP. Bone regeneration by bodily tooth movement: dental computed tomography examination of a patient. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004. 125:100–106.

13. Larato DC. Alveolar plate fenestrations and dehiscence of the human skull. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1970. 29:816–819.

14. Nauert K, Berg R. Evaluation of labio-lingual bony support of lower incisors in orthodontically untreated adults with the help of computed tomography. J Orofac Orthop. 1999. 60:321–334.

15. Ha YR. Comparison of anterior alveolar bone thickness and resorption patterns on adults and adolescents due to retraction of anterior teeth in mandibule. 2006. Seoul: The Graduate School of Yonsei University.

16. Li JL, Li XB, Li JY, Qiao J, Peng MH, Qian X. Study of mandibular anterior alveolar bone thickness in subjects with different facial skeletal types. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2008. 26:399–401.

17. Chung CJ, Jung S, Baik HS. Morphological characteristics of the symphyseal region in adult skeletal Class III crossbite and openbite malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2008. 78:38–43.

18. Reitan K. The tissue reaction as related to the functional factor. Dent Rec (London). 1951. 71:173–183.

19. Reitan K. Initial tissue behavior during apical root resorption. Angle Orthod. 1974. 44:68–82.

20. Douglass C, Gillings D, Sollecito W, Gammon M. National trends in the prevalence and severity of the periodontal diseases. J Am Dent Assoc. 1983. 107:403–412.

21. Van der Velden U. Effect of age on the periodontium. J Clin Periodontol. 1984. 11:281–294.

22. Sched O, Waerhaug J, Lovdal A, Arno A. Alveolar bone loss as related to oral hygiene and age. J Periodontol. 1959. 30:7–16.

23. Harris EF, Dyer GS, Vaden JL. Age effects of orthodontic treatment: skeletodental assessments from the Johnston analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991. 100:531–536.

24. Wehrbein H, Fuhrmann RA, Diedrich PR. Human histologic tissue response after long-term orthodontic tooth movement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995. 107:360–371.

25. Fuhrmann R. Three-dimensional interpretation of labiolingual bone width of the lower incisors. Part II. J Orofac Orthop. 1996. 57:168–185.

TOOLS

Similar articles