COMPARISON OF ALVEOLAR BONE CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN MAXILLARY SECOND PREMOLAR AND MAXILLARY FIRST MOLAR ACROSS DIFFERENT SLICES ON CBCT
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To compare the characteristics of the alveolar bone between maxillary second premolar and maxillary first molar across different slices on CBCT. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted, including 50 CBCT images of individuals aged 18-25 who visited the Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Functional Exploration at the National Hospital of Odonto-Stomatology in Hanoi, with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Measurements were taken of the distance between the roots and the thickness of the alveolar bone and cortical bone at the positions of maxillary second premolar and maxillary first molar on axial slices at 2, 4, 6, and 8mm from the CEJ in the upper jaw. Data were processed using SPSS 27.0 software. Results and Conclusion: There was a marked difference between the axial slice at 2 mm and the slices at 4, 6, and 8 mm, indicating a progressive increase toward the apex. The 8-mm slice demonstrated the greatest values in terms of interradicular width, buccopalatal alveolar bone thickness, and cortical bone thickness. Meanwhile, the difference in cortical bone thickness between the buccal and palatal sides at each slice was not statistically significant.
Article Details
Keywords
alveolar bone, maxillary second premolar, maxillary first molar
References
2. Kalra S, Tripathi T, Rai P, Kanase A. Evaluation of orthodontic mini-implant placement: a CBCT study. Progress in Orthodontics. 2014;15(1):61. doi:10.1186/s40510-014-0061-x
3. Yoon JH, Cha JY, Choi YJ, Park WS, Han SS, Lee KJ. Simulation of miniscrew-root distance available for molar distalization depending on the miniscrew insertion angle and vertical facial type. PLOS ONE. 2020;15(9):e0239759. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0239759
4. Bromberg N, Brizuela M. Dental Cone Beam Computed Tomography. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing; 2025. Accessed April 25, 2025. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK592390/
5. Abdelkarim A. Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in Orthodontics. Dent J (Basel). 2019;7(3):89. doi:10.3390/dj7030089
6. Tepedino M, Cornelis MA, Chimenti C, Cattaneo PM. Correlation between tooth size-arch length discrepancy and interradicular distances measured on CBCT and panoramic radiograph: an evaluation for miniscrew insertion. Dental Press J Orthod. 2018;23(5):39.e1-39.e13. doi:10.1590/2177-6709.23.5.39.e1-13.onl
7. Pekiner FN, Yılmaz G, Keser G, Eyüboğlu TF, Özcan M. Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Destruction Patterns in the Posterior Region of the Maxilla Through Cone Beam Computer Tomography on 361 Consecutive Patients: Effect of Age and Gender. Clinical and Experimental Dental Research. 2024;10(6):e70000. doi:10. 1002/cre2.70000
8. Cúc HK. Xác định kích thước xương ổ răng trên phim CTCB hàm trên-dưới. Đại học Y Hà Nội. Published online 2019.
9. Ramesh B, Anbarasu P, Annamalai I, Subramanian S. Mini implant ‘Safe Zones’ in orthodontics: A comprehensive review. Archives of Dental Research. 12(1):9-18. doi:10.18231/ j.adr.2022.003
10. Formosa J, Zou M, Chung CH, Boucher NS, Li C. Mandibular alveolar bone thickness in untreated Class I subjects with different vertical skeletal patterns: a cone-beam computed tomography study. The Angle Orthodontist. 2023;93(6):683-694. doi:10.2319/030523-151.1