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
. 2024 Feb;10(1):e858.
doi: 10.1002/cre2.858.

Quantitative and qualitative 3D analysis of mandibular lingual concavities: Implications for dental implant planning in the posterior mandible

Ahmed Yaseen Alqutaibi  1   2 , Mohammed Ahmed Alghauli  2 , Afaf Aboalrejal  3 , Abduljabbar K Mulla  4 , Anwar A Almohammadi  4 , Abdullah W Aljayyar  4 , Shahad O Alharbi  4 , Esam S Almuzaini  4 , Ahmed K Alsaeedi  4 , Lina F Arabi  4 , Mohammed Nasser Alhajj  5 , Esam Halboub  6
Affiliations

Quantitative and qualitative 3D analysis of mandibular lingual concavities: Implications for dental implant planning in the posterior mandible

Ahmed Yaseen Alqutaibi et al. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2024 Feb.

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to investigate the type of ridge (degree of angulation of the lingual concavity) and the buccolingual dimensions in the area of the first and second molars in both genders of different ages and how this will affect implant placement in the posterior mandible.

Materials and methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study comprised cone beam computed tomography images of 150 dental patients (75 males and 71 aged ≥30). The following were measured/reported: type (morphology) of the ridge (convex [C], parallel [P], or undercut [U]), buccolingual width at the base and the crest of the ridge, and ridge height. The concavity angle, depth, and length of the U-shaped ridge were measured too.

Results: The prevalence of type U ridge ranged from 32.7% in the first molar region to 62.7% in the second molar region. Almost all measurements and ridge type distributions were comparable amongst the age groups (p > .05). Very few significant differences were found when comparing #36 versus #37 and #46 versus #47 teeth, with no differences in the distribution of the ridge types (p > .05). Quite the inverse, all measurements were statistically different when comparing #36 versus #37 and #46 versus #47 teeth, and type U ridge was more frequent in second molar compared to the first molar regions, respectively (p < .05). Many measurements were statistically higher in females; the inverse was true for a few measurements (p < .05). Type U ridge in #36 and #37 was found more frequently among males (p < .001). In contrast, the ridge types in #37 and #47 were not statistically different gender-wise.

Conclusions: The U type of ridge was more prevalent in the investigated population, encountered more frequently in the second molars generally and in the first molars of males than females. Most posterior mandibular measurements are similar age- and side-wise but seem different gender- and tooth-wise.

Keywords: CBCT; dental implant; lingual concavity; ridge type.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Ridge morphology types: type C (convex), U (undercut), and P (parallel).
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) Presentation of alveolar ridges dimensional measurements (Wc, 2 mm below the alveolar ridge crest buccolingual width of ridges; Wb, 2 mm above inferior alveolar canal buccolingual width of ridges; Vcb, the height of the alveolar ridge). (b) Presentation of concavity angle measurements of U‐shaped ridges, and (c) presentation of concavity depth and length measurements of U‐shaped ridges.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Virtual implant placement in three ridge types: type C (convex), U (undercut), and P (parallel).
Figure 4
Figure 4
The ridge type distributions of the ridge types in #36 versus #46 and #37 versus #47.
Figure 5
Figure 5
The ridge type distributions in 36 versus 37 and 46 versus 47.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Al Sheikh, H. A. , AlZain, S. , Warsy, A. , AlMukaynizi, F. , & AlThomali, A. (2019). Mandibular residual ridge height in relation to age, gender and duration of edentulism in a Saudi population: A clinical and radiographic study. The Saudi Dental Journal, 31, 258–264. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alqutaibi, A. Y. , Alassaf, M. S. , Elsayed, S. A. , Alharbi, A. S. , Habeeb, A. T. , Alqurashi, M. A. , Albulushi, K. A. , Elboraey, M. O. , Alsultan, K. , & Mahmoud, I. I. (2022). Morphometric analysis of the midline mandibular lingual canal and mandibular lingual foramina: A cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) evaluation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 16910. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bodart, L. , Hanken, H. , Smeets, R. , Gosau, M. , Li, C. , Kluwe, L. , & Klatt, J. (2020). Assessing the frequency of deep lingual concavities in 826 posterior mandible sockets. Journal of Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, 48, 1045–1051. - PubMed
    1. Chan, H. L. , Benavides, E. , Yeh, C. Y. , Fu, J. H. , Rudek, I. E. , & Wang, H. L. (2011). Risk assessment of lingual plate perforation in posterior mandibular region: A virtual implant placement study using cone‐beam computed tomography. Journal of Periodontology, 82, 129–135. - PubMed
    1. Datta, M. , Sinha, R. , Sarkar, S. , Sen, S. , Maity, S. , & Jha, H. (2022). Importance of CBCT as a diagnostic tool for evaluating the position of inferior alveolar canal during dental implant placement: A systemic review. Dent Res, 1, 64–73.

Substances

LinkOut - more resources