Mandibular alveolar bone thickness in untreated Class I subjects with different vertical skeletal patterns: a cone-beam computed tomography study

• Published in: The Angle orthodontist Vol. 93; no. 6; pp. 683 - 694
• Main Authors: Formosa, Joseph, Zou, Min, Chung, Chun-Hsi, Boucher, Normand S., Li, Chenshuang
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Edward H. Angle Society of Orthodontists 01.11.2023
• Subjects: Original
• ISSN: 0003-3219; 1945-7103; 1945-7103
• DOI: 10.2319/030523-151.1

To evaluate the mandibular alveolar bone thickness in untreated skeletal Class I subjects with different vertical skeletal patterns.OBJECTIVETo evaluate the mandibular alveolar bone thickness in untreated skeletal Class I subjects with different vertical skeletal patterns.A total of 50 preorthodontic treatment cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of a skeletal Class I Chinese population with near-normal occlusion were selected. The buccal and lingual alveolar bone thicknesses of mandibular canines to second molars were measured at 2 mm below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ), mid-root, and root apex levels. Differences in the measurements were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U-test. The correlation between alveolar bone thickness and the sella-nasion-mandibular plane (SN-MP) angle was calculated using Pearson correlation coefficients and linear regression analysis.MATERIALS AND METHODSA total of 50 preorthodontic treatment cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of a skeletal Class I Chinese population with near-normal occlusion were selected. The buccal and lingual alveolar bone thicknesses of mandibular canines to second molars were measured at 2 mm below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ), mid-root, and root apex levels. Differences in the measurements were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U-test. The correlation between alveolar bone thickness and the sella-nasion-mandibular plane (SN-MP) angle was calculated using Pearson correlation coefficients and linear regression analysis.Buccal alveolar bone was thinner on all mandibular canines to first molars but thicker on second molars in comparison with lingual alveolar bone. Buccal alveolar bone was within 1 mm at the levels of 2 mm below CEJ and mid-root for the canines and first premolars. Significant differences were detected among subjects with different vertical patterns, with a negative correlation between the SN-MP angle and alveolar thickness, especially in the canine and premolar regions. The thinnest buccal and lingual alveolar bone were detected in the high-angle group canine region (0.50 mm at the levels of 2 mm below CEJ and mid-root for the buccal side, 0.90 mm at the level of 2 mm below the CEJ for the lingual side).RESULTSBuccal alveolar bone was thinner on all mandibular canines to first molars but thicker on second molars in comparison with lingual alveolar bone. Buccal alveolar bone was within 1 mm at the levels of 2 mm below CEJ and mid-root for the canines and first premolars. Significant differences were detected among subjects with different vertical patterns, with a negative correlation between the SN-MP angle and alveolar thickness, especially in the canine and premolar regions. The thinnest buccal and lingual alveolar bone were detected in the high-angle group canine region (0.50 mm at the levels of 2 mm below CEJ and mid-root for the buccal side, 0.90 mm at the level of 2 mm below the CEJ for the lingual side).To avoid periodontal complications, buccal-lingual movement of the mandibular canines and first premolars should be limited, especially in high-angle patients.CONCLUSIONSTo avoid periodontal complications, buccal-lingual movement of the mandibular canines and first premolars should be limited, especially in high-angle patients.