Analysis of whether or not the alveloar palatine bone thickness of the central incisors is sufficient for implants of 3 mm and 3.5 mm thickness using cone-beam computed tomography
As a result of the analysis, it was seen that the palatinealveloar bone thickness that was observed in women was thinner than thatin men.
📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale
🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Aim: The purpose of this study was to investigate the alveloar palatinebone thickness of the maxillary central incisors using cone-beam computedtomography (CBCT).Methodology: This study used the CBCT images of 480 patients (240 male– 240 female).
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:In order to determine bone thickness, measurements weremade on the program perpendicularly to the long axis of the tooth at 3points selected from the 3, 6 and 9 mm apical or the enamel-cementborder in parallel to the long axis of the central teeth.Results: For the left central teeth, the mean palatine bone thickness wasfound for the coronal, medial and apical regions as 1.48 mm, 3.09 mm and5.13 mm, respectively, while these values were respectively 1.35 mm, 2.95mm and 5.10 mm for the right side.Conclusions: Considering that there should be a bone of at least 1 mmthickness on socket walls for immediate implantation, it was determinedthat palatine bone thickness is not sufficient by itself for immediateimplantation.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:As a result of the analysis, it was seen that the palatinealveloar bone thickness that was observed in women was thinner than thatin men.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri
Abstract
Aim: The purpose of this study was to investigate the alveloar palatinebone thickness of the maxillary central incisors using cone-beam computedtomography (CBCT).Methodology: This study used the CBCT images of 480 patients (240 male– 240 female). In order to determine bone thickness, measurements weremade on the program perpendicularly to the long axis of the tooth at 3points selected from the 3, 6 and 9 mm apical or the enamel-cementborder in parallel to the long axis of the central teeth.Results: For the left central teeth, the mean palatine bone thickness wasfound for the coronal, medial and apical regions as 1.48 mm, 3.09 mm and5.13 mm, respectively, while these values were respectively 1.35 mm, 2.95mm and 5.10 mm for the right side.Conclusions: Considering that there should be a bone of at least 1 mmthickness on socket walls for immediate implantation, it was determinedthat palatine bone thickness is not sufficient by itself for immediateimplantation. As a result of the analysis, it was seen that the palatinealveloar bone thickness that was observed in women was thinner than thatin men.
🔖
Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap
ÜNER, D. D., İZOL, B. S. (2022). Analysis of whether or not the alveloar palatine bone thickness of the central incisors is sufficient for implants of 3 mm and 3.5 mm thickness using cone-beam computed tomography. International Dental Research, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2, 51–57. https://ajindex.com/articles/539533
Wennstrom JL, Ekestubbe A, Grondahl K, Karlsson S, Lindhe J. Oral rehabilitation with implant-supported fixed partial dentures in periodontitis-susceptible subjects. A 5-year prospective study. J Clin Periodontol. 2004;31:713-24. (Crossref
Romeo E, Lops D, Amorfini L, Chiapasco M, Ghisolfi M, Vogel G. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of small-diameter (3.3- mm) implants followed for 1-7 years: a longitudinal study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17:139-48. (Crossref
Karoussis IK, Salvi GE, Heitz-Mayfield LJ, Bragger U, Hammerle CH, Lang NP. Long-term implant prognosis in patients with and without a history of chronic periodontitis: a 10-year prospective cohort study of the ITI Dental Implant System. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14:329-39. (Crossref
Chowdhary R, Chandraker N. Simple diagnostic method to assess the available bone for immediate implant placement in an extracted socket. J Oral Implantol. 2011;37:473-6. (Crossref
Braut V, Bornstein MM, Belser U, Buser D. Thickness of the anterior maxillary facial bone wall-a retrospective radiographic study using cone beam computed tomography. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2011;31:125-31
Çakır M, Karaca İR. İmplant uygulamaları için kret koruma teknikleri. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2015;25:107-18. (Crossref
Qian J, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Reasons for marginal bone loss around oral implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14:792-807. (Crossref
Schulte W, Kleineikenscheidt H, Lindner K, Schareyka R. [The Tubingen immediate implant in clinical studies]. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z. 1978;33:348-59
Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Polyzos IP, Felice P, Worthington HV. Timing of implant placement after tooth extraction: immediate, immediate-delayed or delayed implants? A 205. (Crossref
Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 2005;32:212-8. (Crossref
Araujo MG, Sukekava F, Wennstrom JL, Lindhe J. Tissue modeling following implant placement in fresh extraction sockets. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17:615-24. (Crossref
Araujo MG, Wennstrom JL, Lindhe J. Modeling of the buccal and lingual bone walls of fresh extraction sites following implant installation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17:606-14. (Crossref
Lang NP, Pun L, Lau KY, Li KY, Wong MC. A systematic review on survival and success rates of implants placed immediately into fresh extraction sockets after at least