Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2020; 14(02): 250-259
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1709932
Original Article

Evaluation of Mandibular First Molars’ Axial Inclination and Alveolar Morphology in Different Facial Patterns: A CBCT Study

Marcos Cezar Ferreira
1   Multidisciplinary Dental Institute (IOM), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil and São Leopoldo Mandic, Campinas, SP, Brazil
,
Karina Maria Salvatore de Freitas 
2   Department of Orthodontics, Uningá University Center, Maringá, PR, Brazi
,
Francyle Simões Herrera-Sanches
3   Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, SP, Brazil
,
Patrícia Bittencourt dos Santos
4   Department of Orthodontics, State University of Rio Grande do Norte, Caicó, RN, Brazil
,
Daniela Garib
5   Department of Orthodontics, Hospital of Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, SP, Brazil
,
Guilherme Janson
3   Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, SP, Brazil
,
Marcos Roberto de Freitas
3   Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, SP, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the axial inclination of the mandibular first molars and their respective bone morphology among individuals with different facial patterns.

Materials and Methods The sample comprised the cone beam computed tomographies (CBCTs) of 58 subjects divided into three groups according to the facial patterns: 18 brachyfacial (Group 1), with a mean age of 21.58 years; 23 mesofacial (Group 2), with a mean age of 19.14 years; and 17 dolichofacial subjects (Group 3), with a mean age of 19.09 years. Eight variables were evaluated on CBCT scans of each subject: buccal and lingual mandibular height, cervical and middle mandibular width, inclination of mandibular body, inclination of the mandibular molar buccal surface, molar width, molar angulation and tooth/bone angle. Intergroup comparisons were performed with one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey tests.

Results Buccal mandibular height presented statistically significant difference in the three facial patterns. Lingual mandibular height and mandibular inclination showed to be statistically and significantly smaller in brachyfacial subjects than in the other two groups. Mandibular width presented a statistically significant difference between brachyfacial and mesofacial groups. Negative correlations could be observed between the facial pattern and the buccal and lingual mandibular heights and inclination of the mandibular body.

Conclusion Buccal mandibular height was significantly and progressively larger in brachyfacial, mesofacial, and dolichofacial subjects. Lingual mandibular height was significantly smaller in brachyfacial than in mesofacial and dolichofacial subjects. Mandibular width was significantly thicker in brachyfacial than in mesofacial subjects. Brachyfacial subjects had smaller mandibular inclination than mesofacial and dolichofacial subjects.

Keywords

cone beam computed tomography - mandible - molar


Publication History

Article published online:
21 May 2020

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Sadek MM, Sabet NE, Hassan IT. Alveolar bone mapping in subjects with different vertical facial dimensions. Eur J Orthod 2015; 37 (02) 194-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kohakura S, Kasai K, Ohno I, Kanazawa E. Relationship between maxillofacial morphology and morphological characteristics of vertical sections of the mandible obtained by CT scanning. J Nihon Univ Sch Dent 1997; 39 (02) 71-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gracco A, Lombardo L, Mancuso G, Gravina V, Siciliani G. Upper incisor position and bony support in untreated patients as seen on CBCT. Angle Orthod 2009; 79 (04) 692-702
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Tsunori M, Mashita M, Kasai K. Relationship between facial types and tooth and bone characteristics of the mandible obtained by CT scanning. Angle Orthod 1998; 68 (06) 557-562
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Beckmann SH, Kuitert RB, Prahl-Andersen B, Segner D, The RP, Tuinzing DB. Alveolar and skeletal dimensions associated with lower face height. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 113 (05) 498-506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Beckmann SH, Kuitert RB, Prahl-Andersen B, Segner D, The RP, Tuinzing DB. Alveolar and skeletal dimensions associated with overbite. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 113 (04) 443-452
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ahn MS, Shin SM, Wu TJ. et al. Correlation between the cross-sectional morphology of the mandible and the three-dimensional facial skeletal pattern: a structural equation modeling approach. Angle Orthod 2019; 89 (01) 78-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Gracco A, Luca L, Cozzani M, Siciliani G. Assessment of palatal bone thickness in adults with cone beam computerised tomography. Aust Orthod J 2007; 23 (02) 109-113
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Masumoto T, Hayashi I, Kawamura A, Tanaka K, Kasai K. Relationships among facial type, buccolingual molar inclination, and cortical bone thickness of the mandible. Eur J Orthod 2001; 23 (01) 15-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Menezes CC. Influence of the growth pattern on the thickness of the alveolar bone cortex and its correlation with the stability of mini-implants. Master’s thesis: Faculty of Dentistry of Bauru, University of São Paulo 2011
  • 11 Swasty D, Lee J, Huang JC. et al. Cross-sectional human mandibular morphology as assessed in vivo by cone-beam computed tomography in patients with different vertical facial dimensions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139 (04) (Suppl) e377-e389
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gómez Y, García-Sanz V, Zamora N. et al. Associations between mandibular symphysis form and craniofacial structures. Oral Radiol 2018; 34 (02) 161-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Chan HJ, Woods M, Stella D. Mandibular muscle morphology in children with different vertical facial patterns: a 3-dimensional computed tomography study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133 (01) 10.e1-10.e13
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Tong H, Kwon D, Shi J, Sakai N, Enciso R, Sameshima GT. Mesiodistal angulation and faciolingual inclination of each whole tooth in 3-dimensional space in patients with near-normal occlusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 141 (05) 604-617
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ricketts RM. Cephalometric analysis and synthesis. Angle Orthod 1961; 31: 141-156
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Ferreira MC, Garib DG, Cotrim-Ferreira F. Standardization of a method for measuring the buccal and lingual bone plates of the jaws in Cone Beam Computed Tomography (Cone Beam). Dental Press J Orthod 2010; 15: 49.e1-49.e7
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Dahlberg G. Statistical Methods for Medical and Biological Students. New York: Interscience 1940
  • 18 Houston WJB. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 1983; 83 (05) 382-390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Damstra J, Fourie Z, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y. Accuracy of linear measurements from cone-beam computed tomography-derived surface models of different voxel sizes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137 (01) 16.e1-16.e6
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Damstra J, Fourie Z, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y. Reliability and the smallest detectable difference of measurements on 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140 (03) e107-e114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ono A, Motoyoshi M, Shimizu N. Cortical bone thickness in the buccal posterior region for orthodontic mini-implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 37 (04) 334-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 106 (01) 106-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Silva MA, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Bumann A, Visser H, Hirsch E. Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133 (05) 640.e1-640.e5
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Martins JNR, Mata A, Marques D, Caramês J. Prevalence of C-shaped mandibular molars in the Portuguese population evaluated by cone-beam computed tomography. Eur J Dent 2016; 10 (04) 529-535
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Howerton Jr WB, Mora MA. Advancements in digital imaging: what is new and on the horizon?. J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 139 (Suppl) 20S-24S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Loubele M, Van Assche N, Carpentier K. et al. Comparative localized linear accuracy of small-field cone-beam CT and multislice CT for alveolar bone measurements. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 105 (04) 512-518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ludlow JB, Laster WS, See M, Bailey LJ, Hershey HG. Accuracy of measurements of mandibular anatomy in cone beam computed tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007; 103 (04) 534-542
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Lund H, Gröndahl K, Gröndahl HG. Accuracy and precision of linear measurements in cone beam computed tomography Accuitomo tomograms obtained with different reconstruction techniques. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009; 38 (06) 379-386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kasai K, Nakajima Y, Mashita M. et al. [Correlation between morphologies of mandibular vertical sections and linear measurements of the skull]. Nippon Kyosei Shika Gakkai Zasshi 1990; 49 (06) 511-521
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Garib DG, Yatabe MS, Ozawa TO, Silva Filho OG. Alveolar bone morphology under the perspective of the computed tomography: defining the biological limits of tooth movement. Dental Press J Orthod 2010; 15: 192-205
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Fuhrmann R. Three-dimensional evaluation of periodontal remodeling during orthodontic treatment. Semin Orthod 2002; 8: 23-28
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar