scholarly journals Caudal Mandibular Bone Height and Buccal Cortical Bone Thickness Measured by Computed Tomography in Healthy Dogs

2015 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Snyder ◽  
Jason W. Soukup ◽  
Randi Drees ◽  
Tom J. Tabone
2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 325-331
Author(s):  
Kalyani Trivedi ◽  
Bharvi K Jani ◽  
Sagar Hirani ◽  
Mansi V Radia

Aim: The purpose of this study was to use measurements from cone beam computed tomography scans to quantify the cortical bone thickness of mandibular buccal shelf region and preferable site for buccal shelf implant placement in 10 hyperdivergent and 10 hypodivergent patients. Method: 20 cone beam computed tomographies were equally divided based on divergence. 6 sites were examined: mesial of first molar (6M), middle of first molar (6Mi), interdental between the first and second molar (Id), mesial of second molar (7M), middle of second molar (7Mi), and distal of second molar (7D). The study quantified the mandibular buccal shelf relative to its angle of slope, the cortical bone thickness measured perpendicular to the bone surface, the amount of cortical bone 30° angle to the bone surface. The cortical bone thickness was measured perpendicular and at a 30° angle at 3, 5, and 7 mm from the alveolar crest. Result: Significant change is seen at the buccal shelf slope at 6M ( P = .001) and further increase in this angle till 7D ( P = .003). Mean amount of cortical bone for hyperdivergent group at 7D is 4.77 ± 0.68 mm and for hypodivergent group is 3.86 ± 0.70 mm. Statistically significant differences were noted at insertion site at 90° and 30° for both groups at 3, 5, and 7 mm from the alveolar crest. Conclusion: Preferable site for buccal shelf implant placement is distal to the mandibular second molar. The maximum amount of cortical bone is found distal to the second molar 7 mm vertically from alveolar crest when the buccal shelf implant is placed at 30° angulation for hyperdivergent group.


2017 ◽  
Vol 123 (6) ◽  
pp. 707-713 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monikelly do Carmo Chagas Nascimento ◽  
Solange Maria de Almeida Boscolo ◽  
Francisco Haiter-Neto ◽  
Emanuela Carla dos Santos ◽  
Ivo Lambrichts ◽  
...  

Odontology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 108 (4) ◽  
pp. 669-675 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonino Lo Giudice ◽  
Lorenzo Rustico ◽  
Alberto Caprioglio ◽  
Marco Migliorati ◽  
Riccardo Nucera

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 5812-5817 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ozkan Adiguzel ◽  
Ceren Aktuna Belgin ◽  
Seda Falakaloglu ◽  
Suzan Cangul ◽  
Zeki Akkus

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 21-27
Author(s):  
Kyumi Vinod Shethiya ◽  
Gauri S. Vichare

Introduction Cortical bone thickness is an important factor in mini implant stability. Many studies have evaluated cortical bone thickness by different methods, but this study is a step ahead in measuring cortical bone in wet mandibles from cadavers comparing thickness values from computed tomograms to images from a stereomicroscope (SM). In this study, we investigated buccal cortical bone thickness at three interdental areas using computed tomography (CT) scan and SM. Methods From the CT scans of 30 wet human cadaveric mandibles, 2-dimensional slices through three interdental area (mesial of canine, interpremolar, and inter-molar) were generated. On these, cortical bone thickness was measured at 2, 4, and 6 mm from the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). The cortical bone thickness at same areas was compared with an SM. Results By both methods, it was observed that thickness of cortical bone increased from mesial of canines toward the premolar region and then decreased in the molar region. Increase in thickness of cortical bone was observed with increase in height from the CEJ toward the apical region up to 6 mm. CT scans underestimated the measurements as compared to the SM method. Conclusions The mean buccal cortical bone thickness at all interdental sites at 2, 4, and 6 mm from CEJ was 1.7 ± 0.4 by the CT scan method and 1.9 ± 0.5 by the SM method, indicating that results observed with the CT method were underestimated by 11% than SM method.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 156
Author(s):  
MB Raghuraj ◽  
KennethF. H. Tan ◽  
RabindraS Nayak ◽  
Azam Pasha ◽  
K Vinay ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document