Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Dent. Med
Sec. Aging and Dental Medicine
Volume 5 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fdmed.2024.1472028

Morphology and Thickness of the Buccal Bone Wall of the Maxillary Central Incisors : A CBCT Study

Provisionally accepted
Yaping Song Yaping Song 1*Song Yang Song Yang 2Chao Wang Chao Wang 3
  • 1 The Affiliated Traditionat Chinese Medicine Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
  • 2 Fujian Provincial Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterial, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian Province, China
  • 3 Guanghua School of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    The objective of this study was to measure and analyze the anatomical morphology and thickness of the buccal bone wall (BBW) of the maxillary central incisors, providing a theoretical basis for immediate implant surgery. A total of 372 maxillary central incisors were collected and classified into B and P types based on the root position and the degree of coverage of the BBW. The cases were divided into male and female groups, with 180 males and 192 females. The thickness of the BBW was measured at three measurement locations: 4 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ), the midroot, and the root apex. The number and proportion of various types of BBW are as follows: B1 (54, 14.52%), B2 (72, 19.35%), B3 (61, 16.40%), P1 (76, 20.43%), P2 (66, 17.74%), and P3 (43, 11.56%). In the B type group, the thickest BBW at 4 mm apical to the CEJ and the mid-root was observed in B3 (0.89 mm ± 0.09 mm, 0.56 mm ± 0.07 mm). The thickest BBW at the root apex was observed in B2 (0.46 mm ± 0.05 mm). In the P-type group, the thickest BBW at all three measurement locations was observed in P3 (1.10 mm ± 0.08 mm, 1.04 mm ± 0.11 mm, 3.59 mm ± 0.12 mm). The BBW of the maxillary central incisors in males was thicker than that in females. The conclusion drawn was that most BBW of the maxillary central incisors are thin, with a portion of the maxillary central incisors having only a thin BBW coverage at 4 mm apical to the CEJ and no significant bone wall coverage elsewhere. This Type of maxillary central incisor presents a higher risk of buccal soft and hard tissue recession and even bone fenestration after implant surgery. It is, therefore, crucial to assess the threedimensional position of the root and measure the thickness of the BBW using Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

    Keywords: Maxillary central incisor, Buccal bone wall, Anatomical classification, Immediate implant, CBCT

    Received: 28 Jul 2024; Accepted: 18 Nov 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Song, Yang and Wang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Yaping Song, The Affiliated Traditionat Chinese Medicine Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.