Estimation of soft- and hard-tissue thickness at implant sites
- PMID: 25210381
- PMCID: PMC4157277
- DOI: 10.4103/0975-7406.137384
Estimation of soft- and hard-tissue thickness at implant sites
Abstract
Introduction: Anchorage control is a critical consideration when planning treatment for patients with dental and skeletal malocclusions. To obtain sufficient stability of implants, the thickness of the soft tissue and the cortical-bone in the placement site must be considered; so as to provide an anatomical map in order to assist the clinician in the placement of the implants.
Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the thickness of soft- and hard-tissue.
Materials and methods: To measure soft tissue and cortical-bone thicknesses, 12 maxillary cross-sectional specimens were obtained from the cadavers, which were made at three maxillary mid-palatal suture areas: The interdental area between the first and second premolars (Group 1), the second premolar and the first molar (Group 2), and the first and second molars (Group 3). Sectioned samples along with reference rulers were digitally scanned. Scanned images were calibrated and measurements were made with image-analysis software. We measured the thickness of soft and hard-tissues at five sectional areas parallel to the buccopalatal cementoenamel junction (CEJ) line at 2-mm intervals and also thickness of soft tissue at the six landmarks including the incisive papilla (IP) on the palate. The line perpendicular to the occlusal plane was made and measurement was taken at 4-mm intervals from the closest five points to IP.
Results: (1) Group 1:6 mm from CEJ in buccal side and 2 mm from CEJ in palatal side. (2) Group 2:8 mm from CEJ in buccal side and 4 mm from CEJ in palatal side. (3) Group 3:8 mm from CEJ in buccal side and 8 mm from CEJ in palatal side.
Conclusions: The best site for placement of implant is with thinnest soft tissue and thickest hard tissue, which is in the middle from CEJ in buccal side and closest from CEJ in palatal side in Group 1 and faraway from CEJ in buccal side and closest from CEJ in palatal side in Group 2 and faraway from CEJ in buccal side and faraway from CEJ in palatal side in Group 3.
Keywords: Anchorage; hard tissue; implant stability; soft tissue.
Conflict of interest statement
Figures


References
-
- Gainsforth BL, Higley LB. A study of orthodontic anchorage possibilities in basal bone. Am J Orthod Oral Surg. 1945;31:406–16.
-
- Roberts WE, Helm FR, Marshall KJ, Gongloff RK. Rigid endosseous implants for orthodontic and orthopedic anchorage. Angle Orthod. 1989;59:247–56. - PubMed
-
- Turley PK, Kean C, Schur J, Stefanac J, Gray J, Hennes J, et al. Orthodontic force application to titanium endosseous implants. Angle Orthod. 1988;58:151–62. - PubMed
-
- Shapiro PA, Kokich VG. Uses of implants in orthodontics. Dent Clin North Am. 1988;32:539–50. - PubMed
-
- Schweizer CM, Schlegel KA, Rudzki-Janson I. Endosseous dental implants in orthodontic therapy. Int Dent J. 1996;46:61–8. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources