Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Influence of the anterior arch shape and root position on root angulation in the maxillary esthetic area

  • Petaibunlue, Suweera (Esthetic Restorative and Implant Dentistry Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University) ;
  • Serichetaphongse, Pravej (Esthetic Restorative and Implant Dentistry Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University) ;
  • Pimkhaokham, Atiphan (Esthetic Restorative and Implant Dentistry Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University)
  • Received : 2019.01.24
  • Accepted : 2019.04.10
  • Published : 2019.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study was conducted to characterize the relationship of the angulation between the tooth root axis and alveolar bone axis with anterior alveolar(AA) arch forms and sagittal root position (SRP) in the anterior esthetic region using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Materials and Methods: CBCT images that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were categorized using a recent classification of AA arch forms and a SRP classification. Then, the angulation of the root axis and the alveolar bone axis was measured using mid-sagittal CBCT images of each tooth. The relationships of the angulation with each AA arch form and SRP classification were evaluated using 1-way analysis of variance and a linear regression model. Results: Ninety-eight CBCT images were included in this study. SRP had a greater influence than the AA arch form on the angulation of the root axis and the alveolar bone axis(P<0.05). However, the combination of AA arch form and SRP was more predictive of the angulation of the root axis and the alveolar bone axis than either parameter individually. Conclusion: The angulation of the root axis and alveolar bone axis demonstrated a relationship with the AA arch form and SRP in teeth in the anterior esthetic region. The influence of SRP was greater, but the combination of both parameters was more predictive of root-to-bone angulation than either parameter individually, implying that clinicians should account for both the AA arch form and SRP when planning implant placement procedures in this region.

Keywords

References

  1. Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19 Suppl: 43-61.
  2. Januario AL, Duarte WR, Barriviera M, Mesti JC, Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimension of the facial bone wall in the anterior maxilla: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 1168-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02086.x
  3. Johnson K. A study of the dimensional changes occurring in the maxilla following tooth extraction. Aust Dent J 1969; 14: 241-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.1969.tb06001.x
  4. Misch CE. Anterior single-tooth replacement: surgical considerations. In: Misch CE. Contemporary implant dentistry. 3rd ed. Canada: Mosby Elsevier; 2008. p. 739-68.
  5. Moy PK, Pozzi A, Beumer III J. Surgical Considerations for the Esthetic zone. In: Beumer J, Faulkner RF, Shah K, Moy PK. Fundamentals of implant dentistry: surgical principles. Hanover Park, IL: Quintessence Publishing; 2016. p. 291-332.
  6. Jahangiri L, Devlin H, Ting K, Nishimura I. Current perspectives in residual ridge remodeling and its clinical implications: a review. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 80: 224-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70116-7
  7. Van der Weijden F, Dell'Acqua F, Slot DE. Alveolar bone dimensional changes of post-extraction sockets in humans: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2009; 36: 1048-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01482.x
  8. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Miani A Jr, Tartaglia G. Mathematical definition of the shape of dental arches in human permanent healthy dentitions. Eur J Orthod 1994; 16: 287-94. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/16.4.287
  9. Preti G, Pera P, Bassi F. Prediction of the shape and size of the maxillary anterior arch in edentulous patients. J Oral Rehabil 1986; 13: 115-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1986.tb00644.x
  10. Sagat G, Yalcin S, Gultekin BA, Mijiritsky E. Influence of arch shape and implant position on stress distribution around implants supporting fixed full-arch prosthesis in edentulous maxilla. Implant Dent 2010; 19: 498-508. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181fa4267
  11. Pietrokovski J, Starinsky R, Arensburg B, Kaffe I. Morphologic characteristics of bony edentulous jaws. J Prosthodont 2007; 16: 141-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00165.x
  12. Suk KE, Park JH, Bayome M, Nam YO, Sameshima GT, Kook YA. Comparison between dental and basal arch forms in normal occlusion and Class III malocclusions utilizing conebeam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod 2013; 43: 15-22. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2013.43.1.15
  13. Bulyalert A, Pimkhaokham A. A novel classification of anterior alveolar arch forms and alveolar bone thickness: a cone beam computed tomography study. Imaging Sci Dent 2018; 48: 191-9. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2018.48.3.191
  14. Kan JY, Roe P, Rungcharassaeng K, Patel RD, Waki T, Lozada JL, et al. Classification of sagittal root position in relation to the anterior maxillary osseous housing for immediate implant placement: a cone beam computed tomography study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26: 873-6.
  15. Wang HM, Shen JW, Yu MF, Chen XY, Jiang QH, He FM. Analysis of facial bone wall dimensions and sagittal root position in the maxillary esthetic zone: a retrospective study using cone beam computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29: 1123-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3348
  16. Zhang S, Shi X, Liu H. Angulations of anterior teeth with reference to the alveolar bone measured by CBCT in a Chinese population. Implant Dent 2015; 24: 397-401. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000291
  17. Masunaga M, Ueda H, Tanne K. Changes in the crown angulation and dental arch widths after nonextraction orthodontic treatment: model analysis of mild crowding with high canines. Open J Stomatol 2012; 2: 188-94. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojst.2012.23034
  18. Chan HL, Garaicoa-Pazmino C, Suarez F, Monje A, Benavides E, Oh TJ, et al. Incidence of implant buccal plate fenestration in the esthetic zone: a cone beam computed tomography study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29: 171-7. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3397
  19. Levine RA, Huynh-Ba G, Cochran DL. Soft tissue augmentation procedures for mucogingival defects in esthetic sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 Suppl: 155-85. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g3.2
  20. Demircan S, Demircan E. Dental cone beam computed tomography analyses of the anterior maxillary bone thickness for immediate implant placement. Implant Dent 2015; 24: 664-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000340
  21. Lau SL, Chow J, Li W, Chow LK. Classification of maxillary central incisors-implications for immediate implant in the esthetic zone. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 69: 142-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2010.07.074
  22. Buser D, Chen ST, Weber HP, Belser UC. Early implant placement following single-tooth extraction in the esthetic zone: biologic rationale and surgical procedures. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2008; 28: 441-51.
  23. Huynh-Ba G, Pjetursson BE, Sanz M, Cecchinato D, Ferrus J, Lindhe J, et al. Analysis of the socket bone wall dimensions in the upper maxilla in relation to immediate implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21: 37-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01870.x
  24. Kim JH, Lee JG, Han DH, Kim HJ. Morphometric analysis of the anterior region of the maxillary bone for immediate implant placement using micro-CT. Clin Anat 2011; 24: 462-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.21101
  25. Chung SH, Park YS, Chung SH, Shon WJ. Determination of implant position for immediate implant placement in maxillary central incisors using palatal soft tissue landmarks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29: 627-33. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2907
  26. Xu D, Wang Z, Sun L, Lin Z, Wan L, Li Y, et al. Classification of the root position of the maxillary central incisors and its clinical significance in immediate implant placement. Implant Dent 2016; 25: 520-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000438
  27. Jung YH, Cho BH, Hwang JJ. Analysis of the root position of the maxillary incisors in the alveolar bone using cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent 2017; 47: 181-7. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2017.47.3.181
  28. Garber DA, Belser UC. Restoration-driven implant placement with restoration-generated site development. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1995; 16: 796-804.
  29. Garber DA. The esthetic dental implant: letting restoration be the guide. J Am Dent Assoc 1995; 126: 319-25. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1995.0175
  30. Grunder U, Gracis S, Capelli M. Influence of the 3-D boneto-implant relationship on esthetics. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2005; 25: 113-9.
  31. Cho YB, Moon SJ, Chung CH, Kim HJ. Resorption of labial bone in maxillary anterior implant. J Adv Prosthodont 2011; 3: 85-9. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2011.3.2.85
  32. Araujo MG, Linder E, Lindhe J. Bio-Oss collagen in the buccal gap at immediate implants: a 6-month study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01920.x
  33. Mehta H, Shah S. Management of buccal gap and resorption of buccal plate in immediate implant placement: a clinical case report. J Int Oral Health 2015; 7(Suppl 1): 72-5.

Cited by

  1. A study on sagittal root position of maxillary anterior teeth in Korean vol.36, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2020.36.2.88