Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of bone height and width in 7 different tooth regions of totally edentulous maxilla

Year 2024, Volume: 7 Issue: 3, 252 - 258, 27.05.2024

Ayşe Gül Öner Talmaç , Zeynep Dilan Orhan , Levent Ciğerim , Nazlı Hilal Kahraman , Abdalrahım Husseın , İbrahim Doğru , Mohammad Alsmadı , Abdurrahman Galayene

https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1449241

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the residual alveolar bone height and bone width at different depths from the central tooth region to the second molar tooth region in maxillary totally edentulous individuals.
Methods: This retrospective observational radiographic study was performed on cone beam computed tomography images of patients who presented to the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery for dental implant evaluation between January 2010 and March 2023. Horizontal measurements were taken on sagittal cross-sectional images at vertical depths of 1 mm, 3 mm, 5 mm and 7 mm from the alveolar crest. Vertical measurements were made by measuring the distance between the crest of the alveolar
ridge and the base of the nose or the base of the maxillary sinus. The results were evaluated with 95% confidence interval and significance at p<0.05 level.
Results: Of the 104 patients included in the study, 42 were male and 62 were female and their age ranged from 36 to 90 years with a mean age of 50.88±10.28 years. The mean change of 0.46±1.83 units in the vertical measurements on the left side compared to the right side in the lateral region was statistically significant (p<0.05). Bone height was greater in the right and left central regions than in the 2nd premolar, 1st molar and 2nd molar regions (p<0.05). Bone width was greater in the 2nd premolar, 1st molar and 2nd molar regions and on the left side at depths of 1, 3 and 5 mm (p<0.05).
Conclusion: This study was the first to compare residual bone height and width at 1, 3, 5 and 7 mm depth from the central region to the second molar region in individuals with complete maxillary edentulism. The study showed that the loss of horizontal bone width as a result of alveolar crest resorption in edentulous patients was advanced and the need for horizontal augmentation was very high in this group of patients being considered for dental implant surgery.

Keywords

Dental implant, maxilla, edentulous maxilla, bone width, bone height

References

• 1. Klemetti E. A review of residual ridge resorption and bone density. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;75(5):512-514.
• 2. Solar P, Ulm CW, Thornton B, Matejka M. Sex-related differences in the bone mineral density of atrophic mandibles. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;71(4):345-349.
• 3. Carlsson GE. Clinical morbidity and sequelae of treatment with complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;79(1):17-23.
• 4. Rusiniak-Kubik K, Spiechowicz E, Markiewicz H, et al. Występowanie zaniku podłoża protetycznego a objawy osteoporozy w obrębie żuchwy bezzębnych pacjentów geriatrycznych. Prot Stom. 1999;5:247-252.
• 5. Tan WL, Wong TL, Wong MC, Lang NP. A systematic review of post‐extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl. 5):1-21.
• 6. Jung RE, Ioannidis A, Hämmerle CH, Thoma DS. Alveolar ridge preservation in the esthetic zone. Periodontol 2000. 2018; 77(1):165-175.
• 7. Yadav B, Jayna M, Yadav H, Suri S, Phogat S, Madan R. Comparison of different final impression techniques for management of resorbed mandibular ridge: a case report. Case Rep Dent. 2014;2014:253731.
• 8. Mehra D, Prasad A. Prosthodontic management of compromised ridges and situations. J Health Allied Sci NU. 2014;4(01):141-148.
• 9. Kordatzis K, Wright PS, Meijer HJ. Posterior mandibular residual ridge resorption in patients with conventional dentures and implant overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003; 18(3):447.
• 10. Aimetti M, Manavella V, Corano L, Ercoli E, Bignardi C, Romano F. Three-dimensional analysis of bone remodeling following ridge augmentation of compromised extraction sockets in periodontitis patients: a randomized controlled study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(2):202-214. doi: 10.1111/clr.13099
• 11. Hu KF, Lin SW, Lin YC, et al. Using cone-beam computed tomography to assess changes in alveolar bone width around dental implants at native and reconstructed bone sites: a retrospective cohort study. J Pers Med. 2021;11(10):1011.
• 12. Vyas R, Khurana S, Khurana D, Singer SR, Creanga AG, Singer SR. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) Evaluation of alveolar bone thickness and root angulation in anterior maxilla for planning immediate implant placement. Cureus. 2023; 15(4):e37875.
• 13. Gupta J, Ali SP. Cone beam computed tomography in oral implants. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2013;4(1):2.
• 14. Çiçekdağı İlhan C, Dikmen M, Yüzbaşıoğlu E. Accuracy and efficiency of digital implant planning and guided implant surgery. J Exp Clin Med. 2021;38(3s):148-156.
• 15. Celikoglu M, Nur M, Kilkis D, Sezgin OS, Bayram M. Mesiodistal tooth dimensions and anterior and overall Bolton ratios evaluated by cone beam computed tomography. Aust Orthod J. 2013;29(2):153-158.
• 16. Malkoç S, Başçiftçi FA, Nur M, Çatalbaş B. Maxillary and mandibular mesiodistal tooth sizes among different malocclusions in a sample of the Turkish population. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33(5):592-596.
• 17. Katsoulis J, Enkling N, Takeichi T, Urban IA, Mericske‐Stern R, Avrampou M. Relative bone width of the edentulous maxillary ridge. Clinical implications of digital assessment in presurgical implant planning. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 14(s1):e213-e223. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00441.x
• 18. Farina R, Pramstraller M, Franceschetti G, Pramstraller C, Trombelli L. Alveolar ridge dimensions in maxillary posterior sextants: a retrospective comparative study of dentate and edentulous sites using computerized tomography data. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(10):1138-1144.
• 19. Lekovic V, Camargo PM, Klokkevold PR, et al. Preservation of alveolar bone in extraction sockets using bioabsorbable membranes. J Periodontol. 1998;69(9):1044-1049.
• 20. Camargo PM, Lekovic V, Carnio J, Kenney EB. Alveolar bone preservation following tooth extraction: a perspective of clinical trials utilizing osseous grafting and guided bone regeneration. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin. 2004;16(1):9-18.
• 21. Pelegrine AA, Da Costa CES, Correa MEP, Marques Jr JFC. Clinical and histomorphometric evaluation of extraction sockets treated with an autologous bone marrow graft. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(5):535-542.
• 22. Iasella JM, Greenwell H, Miller RL, et al. Ridge preservation with freeze‐dried bone allograft and a collagen membrane compared to extraction alone for implant site development: a clinical and histologic study in humans. J Periodontol. 2003;74(7):990-999.
• 23. Barone A, Varanini P, Orlando B, Tonelli P, Covani U. Deep-frozen allogeneic onlay bone grafts for reconstruction of atrophic maxillary alveolar ridges: a preliminary study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(6):1300-1306.
• 24. Cawood JI, Howell RA. A classification of the edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1988;17(4):232-236. doi: 10.1016/S0901-5027(88)80047-X
• 25. Ulm C, Solar P, Gselimann B, Matejka M, Watzek G. The edentulous maxillary alveolar process in the region of the maxillary sinus-a study of physical dimension. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;24(4):279-282.
• 26. Padhye NM, Bhatavadekar NB. Quantitative assessment of the edentulous posterior maxilla for implant therapy: a retrospective cone beam computed tomographic study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2020;19(1):125-130.
• 27. de Souza Nunes LS, Bornstein MM, Sendi P, Buser D. Anatomical characteristics and dimensions of edentulous sites in the posterior maxillae of patients referred for implant therapy. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2013;33(3):336.
• 28. Pramstraller M, Farina R, Franceschetti G, Pramstraller C, Trombelli L. Ridge dimensions of the edentulous posterior maxilla: a retrospective analysis of a cohort of 127 patients using computerized tomography data. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 22(1):54-61.