EVALUATION OF MANDIBULAR ALVEOLAR BONE THICKNESS IN SKELETAL CLASS I PATIENTS USING CBCT IN THE CANINE-PREMOLAR REGIONS

Thị Thu Phương Nguyễn, Văn Hậu Đặng, Thị Thuần Hà, Ngọc Tân Phan, Mai Linh Đặng, Mạnh Ngọc Minh Đào, Hoàng Yến Nhi Nguyễn, Thuận An Đỗ

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objectives: To describe craniofacial indices in patients with skeletal Class I and varying facial types based on standard lateral cephalometric radiographs, and to assess the thickness of the mandibular alveolar bone in the canine and premolar regions using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), as well as its correlation with facial types. Subjects and methods: This case series study was conducted on patients aged 18-47 years who underwent both lateral cephalometric radiography and CBCT at the Center for Advanced Dentistry, Hanoi Medical University, from July 2024 to June 2025. Results: On lateral cephalometric radiographs, the SNA and SNB angles increased progressively across high–average–low facial types (81.1°–83.2°–84.8° and 77.8°–80.6°–82.6°, respectively). In CBCT analysis, the greatest buccal bone thickness was found at the second premolar region, 6 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) (1.58–1.74–1.98 mm for high–average–low facial types, respectively), while the smallest was observed at the canine region, 2 mm apical to the CEJ (0.59–0.58–0.70 mm for high–average–low facial types, respectively). The greatest lingual bone thickness was also at the second premolar region, 6 mm from the CEJ (3.98–4.00–4.58 mm for high–average–low facial types, respectively), whereas the smallest was recorded at the first premolar region, 2 mm from the CEJ (0.59–0.52–0.92 mm for high–average–low facial types, respectively). The variation pattern of bone thickness was consistent across different facial types. Conclusion: Alveolar bone width increased in the apical direction across all three studied teeth and among all three facial types. Facial morphology had a significant influence on alveolar bone thickness: buccal bone thickness was inversely related to facial angle, while lingual bone thickness showed a direct correlation.  

Article Details

References

1. Khan MYA, Kishore MSV, Bukhari SAA, Rachala MR, Sashidhar NR. Alveolar and Skeletal Chin Dimensions Associated with Lower Facial Height Among Different Divergent Patterns. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(5):ZC75-80. doi:10. 7860/JCDR/2016/19932.7811
2. Sendyk M, Linhares DS, Pannuti CM, Paiva JB de, Rino Neto J. Effect of orthodontic treatment on alveolar bone thickness in adults: a systematic review. Dental Press J Orthod. 2019;24:34-45. doi:10.1590/2177-6709.24.4.034-045.oar
3. Kapila SD, Nervina JM. CTCB in orthodontics: assessment of treatment outcomes and indications for its use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(1): 20140282. doi:10.1259/dmfr. 20140282
4. Hoàng Kim Cúc. Xác định kích thước xương ổ răng trên phim CT Cone Beam hàm trên, dưới. Luận văn Thạc sĩ Y học. Trường Đại học Y Hà Nội; 2019.
5. Nguyễn Thị Hưởng và Nguyễn Thị Bích Ngọc. Đặc điểm bản ngoài xương hàm dưới ở người bệnh có khớp cắn loại III trên phim chụp cắt lớp vi tính chùm tia nón. VMJ. 2023;531(1B): 303-307. doi:10.51298/vmj. v531i1B.7077
6. Li B, Li J, Wang H, Xie X, Wen J, Li H. Relationship between different skeletal facial types and anterior alveolar bone thickness with cone-beam computed tomography in an Asian population. Ann Transl Med. 2022;10(18):956. doi:10.21037/atm-22-935
7. Tayseer Al Zain, Donald J. Ferguson. Cephalometric characterization of an adult Emirati sample with Class I malocclusion. Journal of Orthodontic Science. 2012;1(1):11-15. doi:10. 4103/2278-0203.94772
8. 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.