IS THERE A RELATION BETWEEN ALVEOLAR RIDGE DIMENSIONS AND BUCCAL UNDERCUT IN THE ANTERIOR MAXILLA?

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 30 Sayı: 2, 174 - 180, 15.04.2020

Fatma Nur Yıldız Zühre Zafersoy Akarslan

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.695391

Öz

Abstract
Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate of the relation between the alveolar ridge dimensions and buccal undercut in the anterior maxilla.
Material and Methods: Cone-beam computed tomography images of 150 patients (97 females, 53 males), aged between 16-40 years having full anterior dentition at the maxilla were evaluated. Six-hundred cross-sectional images were obtained from the regions between central, lateral and canine teeth in the right and left maxilla. The alveolar height and width, and the presence and depth of buccal undercut in these regions were assessed.
Results: Results: It was found that the prevalence of buccal undercuts in different regions ranged from 74% to 84% on average. Compared to males, the presence of buccal undercut was found to be significantly higher in females in the regions of between right lateral-canine teeth, left central-lateral teeth and left lateral-canine teeth (p<0.05). A significant positive correlation was determined between alveolar height and coronal alveolar width with buccal undercut depth for all the regions in females (p<0.01). However, a significant positive correlation was only found between coronal alveolar width and buccal undercut depth in the regions of between right central-lateral teeth, left lateral-canine teeth (p<0.05) and right lateral-canine teeth (p<0.01) in males.
Conclusion: The dimensions of the alveolar ridge had an effect on the buccal undercut depth. The buccal undercut depth increased when alveolar height and coronal alveolar width increased in females, however it increased only when the coronal alveolar width increased in males.
Key Words: Prosessus alveoleris, morphology, cone-beam computed tomography.

Anterior maksillada alveoler kret boyutları ve bukkal andırkat arasında bir ilişki var mı?
Öz
Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı maksilla anterior bölgede alveoler kret boyutları ile bukkal andırkat arasındaki ilişkinin araştırılmasıdır.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Maksillada tam anterior dentisyona sahip, 16-40 yaşları arasındaki 150 hastaya (97 kadın, 53 erkek) ait konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi görüntüleri değerlendirildi. Sağ ve sol maksillada santral, lateral ve köpek dişleri arasındaki bölgelerden altı yüz krosseksiyonel kesit görüntüsü elde edildi. Bu bölgelerde alveoler kret yüksekliği ve genişliği ile bukkal andırkat varlığı ve derinliği değerlendirildi.
Bulgular: Farklı bölgelerde bukkal andırkat görülme sıklığının ortalama% 74 ile % 84 arasında değiştiği bulundu. Kadınlarda sağ lateral-kanin, sol santral-lateral, sol lateral-kanin dişler arası bölgelerde bukkal andırkat varlığı erkeklere kıyasla anlamlı olarak daha yüksek bulundu (p<0.05). Kadınlarda tüm bölgelerde alveoler yükseklik ve koronal alveoler genişlik ile bukkal andırkat derinliği arasında anlamlı pozitif korelasyon belirlendi (p<0.01). Bununla birlikte, erkeklerde sadece sağ santral-lateral, sol lateral-kanin (p<0.05) ve sağ lateral-kanin (p<0.01) dişler arası bölgelerde koronal alveoler genişlik ile bukkal andırkat derinliği arasında anlamlı pozitif korelasyon bulundu (p<0.01).
Sonuç: Alveoler kret boyutları bukkal andırkat derinliği üzerinde etkili olmuştur. Kadınlarda koronal alveoler genişlik ve alveoler yükseklik arttıkça bukkal andırkat derinliği artmıştır bununla birlikte, erkeklerde sadece koronal alveoler genişlik arttıkça bukkal andırkat derinliği artmıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Alveoler bombe, morfoloji, cone-beam computed tomography.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Prosessus alveoleris, morphology

Kaynakça

• 1. Consolaro A, Romano FL. Reasons for mini-implants failure: choosing installation site should be valued!. Dental press J Orthod. 2014; 19:18-24.
• 2. Zhang W, Skrypczak A, Weltman R. Anterior maxilla alveolar ridge dimension and morphology measurement by cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) for immediate implant treatment planning. BMC Oral Health 2015; 15:65.
• 3. Shapurian T, Damoulis PD, Reiser GM, Griffin TJ, Rand WM. Quantitative evaluation of bone density using the Hounsfield index. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006; 21(2): 290-297.
• 4. Almasoud NN, Tanneru N, Marei HF. Alveolar bone density and its clinical implication in the placement of dental implants and orthodontic mini-implants. Saudi medical journal 2016; 37(6):684-689.
• 5. Cassetta M, Sofan AAA, Altieri F, Barbato E. Evaluation of alveolar cortical bone thickness and density for orthodontic mini-implant placement. J Clin Exp Dent. 2016; 5(5): e245-252.
• 6. Hiasa K, Abe Y, Okazaki Y, Nogami K, Mizumachi W, Akagawa Y. Preoperative computed tomography-derived bone densities in Hounsfield Units at implant sites acquired primary stability. ISRN Dentistry Volume 2011, Article ID 678729.
• 7. Hao Y, Zhao W, Wang Y, Yu J, Zou D. Assessments of jaw bone density at implant sites using 3D cone-beam computed tomography. Eur Rew Med Pharmacol Sci. 2014; 18:1398-1403.
• 8. Fuh L-J, Huang H-L, Chen C-S, Fu K-L, Shen Y-W, Tu M-G, Shen W-C, Hsu J-T. Variations in bone density at dental implant sites in different regions of the jawbone. J Oral Rehabil. 2010; 37(5):346-351
• 9. Kim H-J, Yu S-K, Lee M-H, Lee H-J, Kim H-J, Chung C-H. Cortical and cancellous bone thickness on the anterior region of alveolar bone in Korean: a study of dentate human cadavers. J Adv Prosthodont. 2012; 4:146-152.
• 10. Ozdemir F, Tozlu M, Germec Cakan D. Quantitative evaluation of alveolar cortical bone density in adults with different vertical facial types using cone-beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod. 2014; 44:36-43.
• 11. Çakur B, Sümbüllü MA, Harorlı A. Operasyon öncesi implant yerlerinin belirlenmesinde radyolojik kriterler ve radyolojik teknik seçimi. J DentFac Atatürk Uni 2007; 2: 23-30.
• 12. Harris D, Buser D, Dula K, Gröndahl K, Harris D, Jacobs R, Lekholm U, Nakielny R, van Steenberghe D, van der Stelt P. EAO Guidelines for the use of Diagnostic Imaging in Implant Dentistry: A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration in Trinity College Dublin. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002; 13(5):566-570.
• 13. Benson BW, Shetty V. Implants. In: White SC, Pharoah M.J, eds. Oral Radiology Principles and Interpretation. 7 st ed. St Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier; 2014. p. 630-645.
• 14. Harris D, Horner K, Gröndahl K, Jacobs R, Ebba H, Benic GI, Bornstein MM, Dawood A, Quirynen M. EAO guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry 2011. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration at the Medical University of Warsaw. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23(11):1243-1253. 15. Baumgaertel S, Hans MG. Buccal cortical bone thickness for mini-implant placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136:230-235.
• 16. Choi JH, Yu HS, Lee KJ, Park YC. Three-dimensional evaluation of maxillary anterior alveolar bone for optimal placement of miniscrew implants. Korean J Orthod. 2014; 44:54-61.
• 17. Fayed MMS, Pazera P, Katsaros C. Optimal sites for orthodontic mini-implant placement assessed by cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80:939-951
• 18. Chung M-P, Wang I-C, Chan H-L, Wang H-L. Evaluation of Buccal Bone Concavity in the Esthetic Zone: A Cadaver Study. Implant Dentistry. 2017; 26:751-755.