Objectives: The aim was to evaluate and compare the alveolarbone support of mandibular central incisors in subjects with ClassIII and Class I skeletal patterns using cone-beam computedtomography (CBCT).Materials and Methods: Group 1 included 20 patients (meanage=19.78±2.80) with Class III malocclusion (mean ANB°=-2.77±3.69), mesofacial growth pattern (FMA°=27.03 ±5.11) andlingual-inclined mandibular incisors (IMPA°
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: The aim was to evaluate and compare the alveolarbone support of mandibular central incisors in subjects with ClassIII and Class I skeletal patterns using cone-beam computedtomography (CBCT).Materials and Methods: Group 1 included 20 patients (meanage=19.78±2.80) with Class III malocclusion (mean ANB°=-2.77±3.69), mesofacial growth pattern (FMA°=27.03 ±5.11) andlingual-inclined mandibular incisors (IMPA°
📊
Key Findings & Data:Objectives: The aim was to evaluate and compare the alveolarbone support of mandibular central incisors in subjects with ClassIII and Class I skeletal patterns using cone-beam computedtomography (CBCT).Materials and Methods: Group 1 included 20 patients (meanage=19.78±2.80) with Class III malocclusion (mean ANB°=-2.77±3.69), mesofacial growth pattern (FMA°=27.03 ±5.11) andlingual-inclined mandibular incisors (IMPA°
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Objectives: The aim was to evaluate and compare the alveolarbone support of mandibular central incisors in subjects with ClassIII and Class I skeletal patterns using cone-beam computedtomography (CBCT).Materials and Methods: Group 1 included 20 patients (meanage=19.78±2.80) with Class III malocclusion (mean ANB°=-2.77±3.69), mesofacial growth pattern (FMA°=27.03 ±5.11) andlingual-inclined mandibular incisors (IMPA°
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters
Abstract
Objectives: The aim was to evaluate and compare the alveolarbone support of mandibular central incisors in subjects with ClassIII and Class I skeletal patterns using cone-beam computedtomography (CBCT).Materials and Methods: Group 1 included 20 patients (meanage=19.78±2.80) with Class III malocclusion (mean ANB°=-2.77±3.69), mesofacial growth pattern (FMA°=27.03 ±5.11) andlingual-inclined mandibular incisors (IMPA°
Özet
Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) kullanılarak iskeletsel Sınıf III ve Sınıf I malokluzyonlu bireylerde mandibuler santral keserlerin etrafındaki alveolar kemik desteğini değerlendirmek ve karşılaştırmaktır. Materyal ve Metod: Grup 1, İskeletsel Sınıf III malokluzyona (ortalama ANB°= -2,77±3,69), mezofasiyal büyüme yönüne (FMA°=27,03 ±5,11) ve linguale eğimli mandibuler keserlere (IMPA°
🔖
Cite This Article
ATİK, E., COŞKUNER, H. G., TANER, T. (2022). COMPARISON AND EVALUATION OF ALVEOLAR BONE AROUND LOWER CENTRAL INCISORS IN CLASS III AND CLASS I PATIENTS. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal, Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 3, 239–248. https://ajindex.com/articles/476994
Handelman CS. The anterior alveolus: its importance in limiting orthodontic treatment and its influence on the occurrence of iatrogenic sequelae. Angle Orthod 1996;66:95-109; discussion 109-110
Yamada C, Kitai N, Kakimoto N, Murakami S, Furukawa S, Takada K. Spatial relationships between the mandibular central incisor and associated alveolar bone in adults with mandibular prognathism. Angle Orthod 2007;77:766-772
Yu Q, Pan XG, Ji GP, Shen G. The association between lower incisal inclination and morphology of the supporting alveolar bone--a cone-beam CT study. Int J Oral Sci 2009;1:217-223
Joss-Vassalli I, Grebenstein C, Topouzelis N, Sculean A, Katsaros C. Orthodontic therapy and gingival recession: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 2010;13:127-141
Djeu G, Hayes C, Zawaideh S. Correlation between mandibular central incisor proclination and gingival recession during fixed appliance therapy. Angle Orthod 2002;72:238-245
Yared KF, Zenobio EG, Pacheco W. Periodontal status of mandibular central incisors after orthodontic proclination in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:6 e1-8
Kim Y, Park JU, Kook YA. Alveolar bone loss around incisors in surgical skeletal Class III patients. Angle Orthod 2009;79:676-682
Melsen B, Allais D. Factors of importance for the development of dehiscences during labial movement of mandibular incisors: a retrospective study of adult orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:552-561; quiz 625
Wainwright WM. Faciolingual tooth movement: its influence on the root and cortical plate. Am J Orthod 1973;64:278-302. 10.Sendyk M, de Paiva JB, Abrao J, Rino Neto J. Correlation between buccolingual tooth inclination and alveolar bone thickness in subjects with Class III dentofacial deformities. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;152:66- 79. 11.Lupi JE, Handelman CS, Sadowsky C. Prevalence and severity of apical root resorption and alveolar bone loss in orthodontically treated adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:28-37. 12.Ten Hoeve A, Mulie RM. The effect of antero-postero incisor repositioning on the palatal cortex as studied with laminagraphy. J Clin Orthod 1976;10:804-822. 13.Leuzinger M, Dudic A, Giannopoulou C, Kiliaridis S. Root-contact evaluation by panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography of super-high resolution. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:389-392. 14.Zamora N, Llamas JM, Cibrian R, Gandia JL, Paredes V. Cephalometric measu