EVALUATION OF MANDIBULAR ALVEOLAR BONE THICKNESS IN SKELETAL CLASS I PATIENTS USING CBCT IN THE CANINE-PREMOLAR REGIONS
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
Keywords
Alveolar bone thickness, Alveolar bone, Facial type, Canine, First premolar, Second premolar, Mandibular bone, Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Skeletal Class I.
References
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.