Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Nov 21;18(1):194.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0652-x.

Thickness of the buccal bone wall and root angulation in the maxilla and mandible: an approach to cone beam computed tomography

P López-Jarana  1 , C M Díaz-Castro  2 , A Falcão  1 , C Falcão  1 , J V Ríos-Santos  3 , M Herrero-Climent  1
Affiliations

Thickness of the buccal bone wall and root angulation in the maxilla and mandible: an approach to cone beam computed tomography

P López-Jarana et al. BMC Oral Health. .

Abstract

Background: The objective of this paper is to anatomically describe the bone morphology in the maxillary and mandibular tooth areas, which might help in planning post-extraction implants.

Methods: CBCT images (Planmeca ProMax 3D) of 403 teeth (208 upper teeth and 195 lower teeth) were obtained from 49 patients referred to the Dental School of Seville from January to December 2014. The thickness of the facial wall was measured at the crest, point A, 4 mm below, point B, and at the apex, point C. The second parameter was the angle formed between the dental axis and the axis of the basal bone.

Results: A total of 403 teeth were measured. In the maxilla, 89.4% of incisors, 93.94% of canines, 78% of premolars and 70.5% of molars had a buccal bone wall thickness less than the ideal 2 mm. In the mandible, 73.5% of incisors, 49% of canines, 64% of premolars and 53% of molars had < 1 mm buccal bone thickness as measured at point B. The mean angulation in the maxilla was 11.67 ± 6.37° for incisors, 16.88 ± 7.93° for canines, 13.93 ± 8.6° for premolars, and 9.89 ± 4.8° for molars. In the mandible, the mean values were 10.63 ± 8.76° for incisors, 10.98 ± 7.36° for canines, 10.54 ± 5.82° for premolars and 16.19 ± 11.22° for molars.

Conclusions: The high incidence of a buccal wall thickness of less than 2 mm in over 80% of the assessed sites indicates the need for additional regeneration procedures, and several locations may also require custom abutments to solve the angulation problems for screw-retained crowns.

Keywords: Basal bone; Basal bone angulation; Buccal bone wall thickness; CBCT; Cone beam computed tomography; Root angulation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The ethical committee for the University of Seville approved this non-interventional study for the acquisition of the images, number 0159-N-14 (PEIBA) of the Junta de Andalucía, Spain.

Consent for publication

The authors have uploaded the Excel data file to the ‘idUS’ repository of the University of Seville.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Selection of the axial slice
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The thickness of the buccal bone wall. a Thickness at the coronal part of the buccal crest. b Thickness at 4 mm from the coronal buccal crest. c Thickness at the apex from the apical constriction to the buccal wall
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The angle between the dental axis and the basal bone
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Angulation of the alveolar process versus the axial superior tooth axis
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Angulation of the alveolar process versus the axial inferior tooth axis
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sanz M, Cecchinato D, Ferrus J, Pjetursson EB, Lang NP, Lindhe J. A prospective, randomized-controlled clinical trial to evaluate bone preservation using implants with different geometry placed into extraction sockets in the maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(1):13–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01824.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. De Rouck T, Collys K, Cosyn J. Single-tooth replacement in the anterior maxilla by means of immediate implantation and provisionalization: a review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;23(5):897–904. - PubMed
    1. Hammerle CH, Chen ST, Wilson TG., Jr Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding the placement of implants in extraction sockets. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19(Suppl):26–28. - PubMed
    1. Mandelaris GA, Vence BS, Rosenfeld AL, Forbes DP. A classification system for crestal and radicular dentoalveolar bone phenotypes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;33(3):289–296. - PubMed
    1. Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 2005;32(2):212–218. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00642.x. - DOI - PubMed

Substances

LinkOut - more resources