Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

  • 제50권1호
  • /
  • Pages.38-47
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 2093-2278(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2093-2286(eISSN)
대한치주과학회 (Korean Academy of Periodontology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Alveolar bone height according to the anatomical relationship between the maxillary molar and sinus

  • Choi, Yoon Joo (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Kim, Young Hyun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Han, Sang-Sun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Jung, Ui-Won (Department of Periodontics, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Lee, Chena (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Lee, Ari (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Jeon, Kug Jin (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Yonsei University College of Dentistry)
  • 투고 : 2019.09.02
  • 심사 : 2019.12.15
  • 발행 : 2020.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the available alveolar bone height between the maxillary molars and the sinus floor according to their anatomical relationship using cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) images. Methods: A total of 752 maxillary first (M1) and second molars (M2) on CBCT scans of 188 patients were selected. First, each maxillary molar was categorized as type 1, 2, 3, or 4 according to the relationship of the molar root with the maxillary sinus floor. The frequency distribution of each type was analyzed. Second, the shortest vertical distance (VD) of each molar was measured from the furcation midpoints of the roots to the lowest point of the sinus floor by 2 observers. Intraclass correlation coefficients and the t-test were calculated for the VD measurements. Results: For M1, type 3 was the most frequent, followed by type 2. For M2, type 3 was the most common, followed by type 1. The VD measurements of type 1 were 9.51±3.68 mm and 8.07±2.73 mm for M1 and M2, and those of type 3 were 3.70±1.52 mm and 4.03±1.53 mm for M1 and M2, respectively. The VD measurements of M2 were significantly higher in female patients than in male patients. Conclusions: Type 3 was the most frequent anatomical relationship in the maxillary molars, and showed the lowest alveolar bone height. This information will help clinicians to prevent complications related to the maxillary sinus during maxillary molar treatment and to predict the available bone height for immediate implant planning.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Som PM, Curtin HD. Head and neck imaging. 5th ed. St. Louis (MO): Mosby; 2003.
  2. van den Bergh JP, ten Bruggenkate CM, Disch FJ, Tuinzing DB. Anatomical aspects of sinus floor elevations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:256-65. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003256.x
  3. Tavelli L, Borgonovo AE, Re D, Maiorana C. Sinus presurgical evaluation: a literature review and a new classification proposal. Minerva Stomatol 2017;66:115-31.
  4. Wagner F, Dvorak G, Nemec S, Pietschmann P, Traxler H, Schicho K, et al. Morphometric analysis of sinus depth in the posterior maxilla and proposal of a novel classification. Sci Rep 2017;7:45397. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep45397
  5. Jung YH, Cho BH. Assessment of the relationship between the maxillary molars and adjacent structures using cone beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent 2012;42:219-24. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2012.42.4.219
  6. Tian XM, Qian L, Xin XZ, Wei B, Gong Y. An analysis of the proximity of maxillary posterior teeth to the maxillary sinus using cone-beam computed tomography. J Endod 2016;42:371-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.10.017
  7. Kwak HH, Park HD, Yoon HR, Kang MK, Koh KS, Kim HJ. Topographic anatomy of the inferior wall of the maxillary sinus in Koreans. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;33:382-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2003.10.012
  8. Howe RB. First molar radicular bone near the maxillary sinus: a comparison of CBCT analysis and gross anatomic dissection for small bony measurement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;108:264-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.12.021
  9. Sharan A, Madjar D. Correlation between maxillary sinus floor topography and related root position of posterior teeth using panoramic and cross-sectional computed tomography imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;102:375-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.09.031
  10. Lee SM, Lee SS, Huh KH, Yi WJ, Heo MS, Choi SC. The effects of location of alveolar crest on the vertical bone heights on panoramic radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012;41:117-21. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/76750112
  11. Liang XH, Kim YM, Cho IH. Residual bone height measured by panoramic radiography in older edentulous Korean patients. J Adv Prosthodont 2014;6:53-9. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2014.6.1.53
  12. Liu H, Liu R, Wang M, Yang J. Immediate implant placement combined with maxillary sinus floor elevation utilizing the transalveolar approach and nonsubmerged healing for failing teeth in the maxillary molar area: A randomized controlled trial clinical study with one-year follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21:462-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12783
  13. Eufinger H, Gellrich NC, Sandmann D, Dieckmann J. Descriptive and metric classification of jaw atrophy. An evaluation of 104 mandibles and 96 maxillae of dried skulls. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;26:23-8.
  14. Cavalcanti MC, Guirado TE, Sapata VM, Costa C, Pannuti CM, Jung RE, et al. Maxillary sinus floor pneumatization and alveolar ridge resorption after tooth loss: a cross-sectional study. Braz Oral Res 2018;32:e64. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0064
  15. Misch CE, Judy KW. Classification of partially edentulous arches for implant dentistry. Int J Oral Implantol 1987;4:7-13.
  16. Scheid RC, Woelfel JB. Woelfel's dental anatomy: its relevance to dentistry. 8th ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
  17. Han SS, Lee KM, Kim KD. Availability of software-based correction of mandibular plane for the vertical measurement of the mandible in cone beam computed tomography. BioMed Res Int 2015;2015:808625.
  18. Halperin-Sternfeld M, Machtei EE, Horwitz J. Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for dimensional linear measurements in the mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:593-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3409
  19. Perschbacher S. Interpretation of panoramic radiographs. Aust Dent J 2012;57 Suppl 1:40-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01655.x
  20. Gupta J, Ali SP. Cone beam computed tomography in oral implants. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2013;4:2-6. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-5950.117811
  21. Benavides E, Rios HF, Ganz SD, An CH, Resnik R, Reardon GT, et al. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists consensus report. Implant Dent 2012;21:78-86. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e31824885b5
  22. Bornstein MM, Scarfe WC, Vaughn VM, Jacobs R. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29 Suppl:55-77. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.4
  23. Walter C, Dagassan-Berndt DC, Kuhl S, Weiger R, Lang NP, Zitzmann NU. Is furcation involvement in maxillary molars a predictor for subsequent bone augmentation prior to implant placement? A pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:1352-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12275
  24. Matsuda H, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Le BT. Three-dimensional alveolar bone anatomy of the maxillary first molars: a cone-beam computed tomography study with implications for immediate implant placement. Implant Dent 2016;25:367-72. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000430
  25. Pagin O, Centurion BS, Rubira-Bullen IR, Alvares Capelozza AL. Maxillary sinus and posterior teeth: accessing close relationship by cone-beam computed tomographic scanning in a Brazilian population. J Endod 2013;39:748-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.01.014
  26. McNutt MD, Chou CH. Current trends in immediate osseous dental implant case selection criteria. J Dent Educ 2003;67:850-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2003.67.8.tb03671.x
  27. Wagenberg BD, Ginsburg TR. Immediate implant placement on removal of the natural tooth: retrospective analysis of 1,081 implants. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2001;22:399-404.
  28. Misch CE. Maxillary sinus augmentation for endosteal implants: organized alternative treatment plans. Int J Oral Implantol 1987;4:49-58.

피인용 문헌

  1. Specific oral and maxillofacial identifiers in panoramic radiographs used for human identification vol.66, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14673
  2. Comparison of the performances of low-crystalline carbonate apatite and Bio-Oss in sinus augmentation using three-dimensional image analysis vol.7, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00303-4