Evaluation of Crestal Mucosa Thickness with Alveolar Hard Tissue Measurements in CBCT Images Before Implant Placement

Year 2025, Volume: 12 Issue: 1, 58 - 63, 21.04.2025

Özlem Saraç Atagün , Savaş Özarslantürk , Seval Ceylan Şen , Şeyma Çardakcı Bahar

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1481735

Abstract

Abstract
Background: This study aimed to evaluate crestal mucosa thickness, alveolar cortical bone thickness, crest height, and width on CBCT images and compare these measurements across various patient groups and edentulous locations.
Methods: A total of 318 edentulous sites from 100 patients (50 females and 50 males) scheduled for dental implantation were assessed. CBCT images were evaluated using One Volume Viewer Software, and measurements were taken from vertical cross-sectional views aligned with the alveolar ridge. Crestal mucosa thickness (CMT), cortical bone thickness (CBT) at the alveolar crest, alveolar ridge width at 5 mm apical to the crest, buccal and lingual/palatal CBT and alveolar bone height were measured. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS software.
Results: Mucosa thickness in the alveolar crest did not significantly differ across regions (p>0.05). Patients aged ≥65 years exhibited significantly reduced alveolar crest height and buccal, lingual, and palatal CBT. Alveolar ridge width and lingual/palatal CBT were lower in females than males (p<0.001 and p=0.013, respectively).
Conclusion: This study highlights the utility of CBCT in assessing both surrounding soft and hard tissues, facilitating treatment planning for dental implant procedures
Key Words: Alveolar Bone Thickness, Cone Beam Computed Tomography, Crestal Mucosa Thickness, Dental Implantology, Dental Implant Treatment Planning

Keywords

Alveolar Bone Thickness, Cone Beam Computed Tomography, Crestal Mucosa Thickness, Dental Implantology, Dental Implant Treatment Planning

İmplant Yerleştirilmesinden önce KIBT Görüntülerinde Krestal Mukoza Kalınlığının ve Alveolar Sert Doku Ölçümlerinin Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Öz
Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, KIBT görüntülerinde krestal mukoza kalınlığını, alveolar kortikal kemik kalınlığını, kret yüksekliğini ve genişliğini değerlendirmek ve bu ölçümleri çeşitli hasta grupları ve dişsiz konumlar arasında karşılaştırmaktır.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Dental implantasyon planlanan 100 hastanın (50 kadın ve 50 erkek) toplam 318 dişsiz bölgesi değerlendirilmiştir. KIBT görüntüleri One Volume Viewer Yazılımı kullanılarak değerlendirilmiş ve ölçümler, alveolar sırtla hizalanmış dikey kesit görünümlerinden alınmıştır. Krestal mukoza doku kalınlığı (KMK), alveolar krestin kortikal kemik kalınlığı (KKK), bukkal ve lingual/palatal KKK, kretin 5 mm apikalindeki alveolar kret genişliği ve alveolar kemik yüksekliği ölçülmüştür. İstatistiksel analiz SPSS yazılımı kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir.
Bulgular: Alveolar kretteki mukoza kalınlığı, bölgelere göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmamıştır(p>0.05). 65 yaş üstü hastalarda alveolar kret yüksekliği ve bukkal, lingual ve palatal KKK anlamlı derecede azalmıştır. Alveolar kret genişliği ve lingual/palatal KKK erkeklerde kadınlardan daha yüksektir (sırasıyla p<0.001 ve p=0.013).
Sonuçlar: Bu çalışma, dental implant prosedürleri için tedavi planlamasını kolaylaştıran çevredeki hem sert hem de yumuşak dokuları değerlendirmede KIBT'nin yararlılığını vurgulamaktadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Alveolar Kemik Kalınlığı, Dental İmplantoloji, Dental İmplant Tedavi Planlaması, Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi, Krestal Mukoza Yüksekliği

Keywords

Alveolar Kemik Kalınlığı, Dental İmplantoloji, Dental İmplant Tedavi Planlaması, Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi, Krestal Mukoza Yüksekliği

References

• 1. Albrektsson T, Buser D, Sennerby L. Crestal bone loss and oral implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14(6):783-791.
• 2. Renvert S, Quirynen M. Risk indicators for peri-implantitis. A narrative review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26 Suppl 11:15-44.
• 3. Cui X, Reason T, Pardi V, Wu Q, Martinez Luna AA. CBCT analysis of crestal soft tissue thickness before implant placement and its relationship with cortical bone thickness. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22(1):593.
• 4. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent. 2008;17(1):5-15.
• 5. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Singh M, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. Success criteria in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2012;91(3):242-248.
• 6. Akcalı A, Trullenque-Eriksson A, Sun C, Petrie A, Nibali L, Donos N. What is the effect of soft tissue thickness on crestal bone loss around dental implants? A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(9):1046-1053.
• 7. Baffone GM, Botticelli D, Pereira FP, Favero G, Schweikert M, Lang NP. Influence of buccal bony crest width on marginal dimensions of peri-implant hard and soft tissues after implant installation. An experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(3):250-254.
• 8. Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Dimension of the periimplant mucosa. Biological width revisited. J Clin Periodontol. 1996;23(10):971-973.
• 9. Linkevicius T, Linkevicius R, Alkimavicius J, Linkeviciene L, Andrijauskas P, Puisys A. Influence of titanium base, lithium disilicate restoration and vertical soft tissue thickness on bone stability around triangular-shaped implants: A prospective clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(7):716-724.
• 10. Jeong SM, Choi BH, Kim J, et al. A 1-year prospective clinical study of soft tissue conditions and marginal bone changes around dental implants after flapless implant surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011;111(1):41-46.
• 11. Suomalainen A, Vehmas T, Kortesniemi M, Robinson S, Peltola J. Accuracy of linear measurements using dental cone beam and conventional multislice computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37(1):10-17.
• 12. Karadag I, Yilmaz HG. Palatal mucosa thickness and palatal neurovascular bundle position evaluation by cone-beam computed tomography-retrospective study on relationships with palatal vault anatomy. PeerJ. 2021;9:e12699.
• 13. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am. 2008;52(4):707-730, v.
• 14. Rajan RSS, Kumar HSK, Sekhar A, Nadakkavukaran D, Feroz SMA, Gangadharappa P. Evaluating the Role of AI in Predicting the Success of Dental Implants Based on Preoperative CBCT Images: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2024;16(Suppl 1):S886-s888.
• 15. Farronato M, Cenzato N, Crispino R, et al. Divergence between CBCT and Optical Scans for Soft Tissue Analysis and Cephalometry in Facial Imaging: A cross-sectional study on healthy adults. Int Orthod. 2024;22(2):100845.
• 16. Schwarz L, Unger E, Gahleitner A, Rausch-Fan X, Jonke E. A novel approach for gingiva thickness measurements around lower anterior teeth by means of dental magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Oral Investig. 2023;28(1):18.
• 17. Gkogkos A, Kloukos D, Koukos G, Liapis G, Sculean A, Katsaros C. Clinical and Radiographic Gingival Thickness Assessment at Mandibular Incisors: an Ex Vivo Study. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2020;18:607-617.
• 18. Bezerra de Melo N, Sobreira Duarte LN, Maia Vieira Pereira C, et al. Thermographic examination of gingival phenotypes: correlation between morphological and thermal parameters. Clin Oral Investig. 2023;27(12):7705-7714.
• 19. Damanaki A, Memmert S, Nokhbehsaim M, et al. Impact of obesity and aging on crestal alveolar bone height in mice. Ann Anat. 2018;218:227-235.
• 20. Farnsworth D, Rossouw PE, Ceen RF, Buschang PH. Cortical bone thickness at common miniscrew implant placement sites. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139(4):495-503.
• 21. Escobar-Correa N, Ramírez-Bustamante MA, Sánchez-Uribe LA, Upegui-Zea JC, Vergara-Villarreal P, Ramírez-Ossa DM. Evaluation of mandibular buccal shelf characteristics in the Colombian population: A cone-beam computed tomography study. Korean J Orthod. 2021;51(1):23-31.
• 22. Ling C, Shen Y, Zhang X, Ding X. A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Analysis of Bone Volume Variations of Extra-alveolar Region Based on Sex, Age, Vertical and Sagittal Facial Patterns. J Craniofac Surg. 2023;34(7):e660-e664.
• 23. Suárez-López Del Amo F, Lin GH, Monje A, Galindo-Moreno P, Wang HL. Influence of Soft Tissue Thickness on Peri-Implant Marginal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Periodontol. 2016;87(6):690-699.
• 24. Díaz-Sánchez M, Soto-Peñaloza D, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Influence of supracrestal tissue attachment thickness on radiographic bone level around dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontal Res. 2019;54(6):573-588.
• 25. Zhang Z, Shi D, Meng H, Han J, Zhang L, Li W. Influence of vertical soft tissue thickness on occurrence of peri-implantitis in patients with periodontitis: a prospective cohort study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22(3):292-300.
• 26. Kasabreh NS, Khurshid H, Khan MQ, Malaikah S, Wang HL. Marginal Bone Loss in Posterior Implants Placed at Different Levels and Different Prosthetic Designs: A Retrospective Study.". J Oral Implantol. 2024.