Alveolar Cortical Bone Density among Different Facial Types: A CBCT Study

Jump To References Section

Authors

  • Varun G.
     Resident (Orthodontics), Department of Dental Surgery and OHS, AFMC Wanowrie, Pune – 411040, Maharashtra ,IN
  • Sanjeev Datana
     Associate Professor (Orthodontics), Department of Dental Surgery and OHS, AFMC Wanowrie, Pune – 411040, Maharashtra, India ,IN
  • Agarwal S. S.
     Assistant Professor (Orthodontics), Department of Dental Surgery and OHS, AFMC Wanowrie, Pune – 411040, Maharashtra ,IN
  • Bhandari S. K.
     Professor (Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery), Department of Dental Surgery and OHS, AFMC Wanowrie, Pune – 411040, Maharashtra ,IN

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18311/jpfa/2020/25031

Keywords:

Cortical bone density, Facial pattern, TAD
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate and compare the cortical bone density amongst skeletally Class I individuals with different facial forms using Cone Beam Computer Tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: Cross-sectional study was conducted using pre-treatment CBCT records of 45 patients, 15 each of hyperdivergent, normodivergent and hypodivergent facial pattern categories selected from the institutional archives. Median bone density was assessed in anterior and posterior sites of maxilla and mandible, followed by comparison of data between hypodivergent, normodiveregent and hyperdivergent subjects. The inter-group statistical comparison of continuous variables was done using Kruskal-Wallis H test. Intra-group statistical comparison of continuous variables was done using Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Median anterior bone density in maxilla and mandible were relatively similar across the 03 facial patterns (P>0.05). However, buccal cortical bone density was increased in normodivergent and hypodivergent subjects compared to hyperdivergent subjects, which was statistically significant (P<0.05). It was also noticed in this study that the density of left buccal region was higher when compared to right which was statistically significant (P<0.05), across 3 facial patterns. Conclusion: This study concludes that hyperdivergent subjects have relatively less dense bones in both maxilla and mandible as compared to other facial patterns. Clinically, it is advised to place wider diameter and increased length TADs in these subjects for better initial and long term stability. However, long term prospective studies with a larger sample size are required to validate the findings of these studies.

Downloads

Published

2020-07-07

How to Cite

G., V., Datana, S., S. S., A., & S. K., B. (2020). Alveolar Cortical Bone Density among Different Facial Types: A CBCT Study. Journal of Pierre Fauchard Academy (India Section), 34(2), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.18311/jpfa/2020/25031

Issue

Volume 34, Issue 2, June 2020

Section

Original Articles

License

All the articles published in JPFA are distributed under a creative commons license. The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright of their work (all usages allowed except for commercial purpose).

 

References

Horner KA, Behrents RG, Kim KB, Buschang PH. Cortical bone and ridge thickness of hyperdivergent and hypodivergent adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 142: 17–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.03.021

Sassouni V. Diagnosis and treatment planning via roentgenographic cephalometry. Am J Orthod. 1958; 44: 433. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(58)90003-4

Schudy FF. Vertical growth versus anteroposterior growth as related to function and treatment. Angle Orthod 1964; 34(12): 75–93.

Masumoto T, Hayashi I, Kawamura A, Tanaka K, Kasai K. Relationships among facial type, buccolingual molar inclination, and cortical bone thickness of the mandible. Eur J Orthod 2001; 23: 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/23.1.15

Tsunori M, Mashita M, Kasai K. Relationship between facial types and tooth and bone characteristics of mandible obtained by CT scanning. Angle Orthod 1998; 68: 557–562.

Park S, Lee YJ, Jeong SH, Kwon TG. Density of the alveolar and basal bones of the maxilla and the mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.044

Fuh LJ, Huang HL,Chen CS, Fu KL, Shen YW, Tu MG, Shen WC, Hsu JT. Variations in bone density at dental implant sites in different regions of the jawbone. J Oral Rehab 2010; 37: 346–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652842.2010.02061.x

Choi JH, Park CH, Yi SW, Lim HJ, Hwang HS. Bone density measurement in interdental areas with simulate placement of orthodontic miniscrew implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.04.019

Fayeda MMS, Pazerab P, Katsaros C. Optimal sites for orthodontic mini-implant placement assessed by cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80: 939–951. https://doi.org/10.2319/121009-709.1

Baumgaertel S, Hans B. Buccal cortical bone thickness for mini-implant placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136: 230–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.10.045

Marquezan M, Lau TCL, Mattos CT, Cunha AD, Nojima LI, Santanna EF, Gomes de Souza MM, Arau MT. Bone mineral density, Methods of measurement and its influence on primary stability of miniscrews. Angle Orthod. 2012; 82: 62–66. https://doi.org/10.2319/031811-192.1

Miyawaki S, Koyama I, Inoue M, Mishima K, Sugahara T, Takano-Yamamoto T. Factors associated with the stability of titanium screws placed in the posterior region for orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124: 373– 378. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00565-1

Fritz U, Diedrich P, Kinzinger G, Al-said M. The anchorage quality of mini implants towards translatory and extrusive forces. J Orthofac Orthoped. 2003; 64: 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-003-0304-9

Ozdemir F, Tozlu M, Cakan GD. Quantitative evaluation of alveolar cortical bone density in adults with different vertical facial types using cone-beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod 2014; 44(1): 36–43. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2014.44.1.36

Raadsheer MC, Kiliaridis S, Van Eijden TM, Van Ginkel FC, Prahl-Andersen B. Masseter muscle thickness in growing individuals and its relation to facial morphology. Arch Oral Biol 1996; 41: 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/00039969(95)00136-0

Ingervall B, Helkimo E. Masticatory muscle force and facial morphology in man. Arch Oral Biol 1978; 23: 20–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(78)90217-0

Kiliaridis S. Masticatory muscle influence on craniofacial growth. Acta Odont Scand. 1995; 53: 196–202. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016359509005972

Lione R, Franchi L, Noviello A, Fanucci E, Cozza P. ThreeDimensional Evaluation of Masseter Muscle in Different Vertical Facial Patterns: A Cross-Sectional Study in Growing Children. Ultrason Imaging. 2013; 35: 37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0161734613502468

Nomura Y, Watanabe H, Honda E, Kurabayashi T. Reliability of voxel values from cone-beam computed tomography for dental use in evaluating bone mineral density. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21: 558–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1600-0501.2009.01896.x

Orenstein IH, Synan WJ, Truhlar RS, Morris HF, Ochi S. Bone quality in patients receiving endosseous dental implants: Implant Dent. 1994; 3: 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199405000-00004