Thickness Of Buccal Bone Wall Research Articles

Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The role of bone dimensions and soft tissue augmentation procedures on the stability of clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes of implant treatment.

The aims of Working Group 1 were to address the role (i) of the buccolingual bone dimensions after implant placement in healed alveolar ridge sites on the occurrence of biologic and aesthetic complications, and (ii) of soft tissue augmentation (STA) on the stability of clinical, radiographic, and patient-related outcomes of implant treatments. Two systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the Consensus Conference and were discussed among the participants of Group 1. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, recommendations for future research, and reflections on patient perspectives were based on structured group discussions until consensus was reached among the entire group of experts. The statements were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary. Dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge occurred after implant placement in healed sites, and a reduction in buccal bone wall thickness (BBW) of 0.3 to 1.8 mm was observed. In healed sites with a BBW of <1.5 mm after implant placement, increased vertical bone loss, and less favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes were demonstrated. Implants with buccal dehiscence defects undergoing simultaneous guided bone regeneration, showed less vertical bone loss, and more favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes, compared to non-augmented dehiscence defects during initial healing. At healthy single implant sites, probing depths, bleeding and plaque scores, and interproximal bone levels evaluated at 1 year, remained stable for up to 5 years, with or without STA. When single implant sites were augmented with connective tissue grafts, either for soft tissue phenotype modification or buccal soft tissue dehiscence, stable levels of the soft tissue margin, and stable or even increased soft tissue thickness and/or width of keratinized mucosa could be observed from 1 to 5 years. In contrast, non-augmented sites were more prone to show apical migration of the soft tissue margin in the long-term. Favorable aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes after STA were documented to be stable from 1 to 5 years. It is concluded that dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge occur after implant placement in healed sites and that sites with a thin BBW after implant placement are prone to exhibit less favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes. In addition, it is concluded that STA can provide stable clinical, radiographic, aesthetic, and patient-reported outcomes in the medium and long-term.

Evaluation of Buccal Bone Wall Thickness of Anterosuperior Teeth and Nasopalatine Duct Morphology in Cone Beam Computed Tomography of Patients Living at Different Altitudes: A Two-Year Retrospective Study.

ABSTRACTAim:To evaluate the buccal bone wall thickness of anterosuperior teeth and the dimension and morphology of the nasopalatine duct in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) of patients treated in two cities at different altitudes.Materials and Methods:In this retrospective analytical study, 79 CBCT scans were selected from a total of 347 in Juliaca, Peru (3824 m a.s.l.) and 171 CBCT scans were selected from a total of 622 in Lima, Peru (154 m a.s.l.). The buccal bone wall thickness of anterosuperior teeth was measured at 1 mm, 3 mm, and 5 mm from the alveolar crest. For the nasopalatine duct, its length and diameter were measured, and its anatomical shape was determined in coronal view. Descriptive statistical data such as mean and standard deviation were used, and Mann–Whitney U test was used for bivariate analysis.Results:When comparing the CBCT scans from both cities, significant differences were observed in buccal bone wall thickness at 3 mm and 5 mm from the alveolar crest (P < 0.01 and P < 0.01, respectively); for men, at 1 mm and 3 mm (P = 0.04 and P = 0.04); for the age group from 33 to 47 years, at 3 mm and 5 mm (P < 0.01 and P < 0.01); and for the age group from 48 to 77 years, at 1 mm (P = 0.02). Regarding the nasopalatine duct, significant differences were observed in women in relation to length and nasal opening diameter (P < 0.01 and P < 0.01) and for men, in length (P < 0.01); for the age group from 18 to 32 years, in all three levels (P < 0.01); for the age group from 33 to 47 years, in length and diameter of the oral opening (P < 0.01 and P < 0.01); and for the age group from 48 to 77 years, in length and diameter of the nasal opening (P < 0.01 and P < 0.01). The most frequent nasopalatine duct shape was a single canal with more than 66% of cases, according to sex and age group.Conclusion:Patients living at different altitudes presented significant differences in buccal bone wall thickness according to sex and age; however, there were no differences related to dental inclination. Significant differences were found in the length and diameter of the nasopalatine duct at the nasal opening. In addition, the most frequent shape of the nasopalatine duct was the simple canal.

Evaluation of factors affecting alveolar ridge height and facial bone thickness in Chinese maxillary central incisors by cone beam CT

Background/purposeIn the immediate implantation of maxillary central incisors, the height of the alveolar bone is lost, and there is often a risk of bone fracture due to the thin buccal bone wall (BBW). The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of smoking, age, and root position in the alveolar bone on the BBW and the distance between the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and the facial bone crest (FBC) of Chinese maxillary central incisors. Materials and methodsThe patients were divided by smoking, gender, age, and root sagittal position in the alveolar bone. BBW thickness was measured at the following sites: the 4 mm apical to the CEJ, the middle of the root, and the apex. The distance from the CEJ to the FBC was also evaluated. ResultsCone beam CT (CBCT) data for the maxillary central incisors of 645 patients (323 males and 322 females) were selected and analyzed. The CEJ-FBC distance in patients who smoked (2.79 ± 0.78 mm) was significantly greater than that of non-smokers (2.54 ± 0.69 mm). The BBW in subtype III (0.74 ± 0.43 mm, 0.81 ± 0.36 mm) was thinner than that in subtypes I and II at 4 mm apical to the CEJ and in the middle of the root, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). ConclusionIn most Chinese people, smoking, gender, age, and the position of the root in alveolar bone are all important factors that must be considered before immediate implantation is undertaken.

The Critical Peri-implant Buccal Bone Wall Thickness Revisited: An Experimental Study in the Beagle Dog.

There is a lack of knowledge concerning the critical buccal bone thickness required for securing favorable functional and esthetic outcomes, conditioned to the dimensional changes after implant placement. A preclinical study was therefore carried out to identify the critical buccal bone wall thickness for minimizing bone resorption during physiologic and pathologic bone remodeling. A randomized, two-arm in vivo study in healthy beagle dogs was carried out. The first group of dogs was sacrificed 8 weeks after implant placement for histomorphometric examination of postsurgical resorption of the buccal bone wall. The second group of dogs was monitored during three ligature-induced peri-implantitis episodes and a spontaneous progression episode. Morphometric and clinical variables were defined for the study of physiologic and pathologic buccal and lingual bone loss. Seventy-two implants were placed in healed mandibular ridges of 12 beagle dogs. Two groups were defined: 36 implants were placed in sites with a thin buccal bone wall (< 1.5 mm), and 36 were placed in sites with a thick buccal bone wall (≥ 1.5 mm). No implants failed during the study period. For the great majority of the histomorphometric parameters, a critical buccal bone wall thickness of at least 1.5 mm seemed to be essential for maintaining the buccal bone wall during physiologic and pathologic bone resorption. Suppuration (+) and mucosal recession (-) were more often associated with implants placed in sites with a thin buccal bone wall. A critical buccal bone wall thickness of 1.5 mm at implant placement is advised, since a thicker peri-implant buccal bone wall (> 1.5 mm) is exposed to significantly less physiologic and pathologic bone loss compared with a thinner buccal bone wall (< 1.5 mm).

Dimensional changes following alveolar ridge preservation in the posterior area using bovine-derived xenografts and collagen membrane compared to spontaneous healing: a 6-month randomized controlled clinical trial.

To assess dimensional changes following alveolar ridge preservation using bovine-derived xenograft with 10% collagen and collagen membrane compared to ridge preservation by means of bovine-derived xenograft particles and collagen membrane or spontaneous healing in posterior sites. Forty subjects with 40 posterior teeth or roots candidate to extraction and presenting integrity of alveolar bone walls were randomly allocated into three groups. Patients of test group were treated by ridge preservation technique using bovine-derived xenograft with 10% collagen and collagen membrane; patients of control group 1 were treated by means of bovine-derived xenograft particles and collagen membrane while in patients of control group 2, no grafting was performed. Changes in vertical and horizontal bone dimensions were compared at baseline and after 6-month observation time. Statistically significant differences between baseline and 6month were observed in all groups in terms of vertical and horizontal bone resorption (p< 0.001), except for vertical resorption in control group 2. After 6-month intergroup comparisons showed not statistically significant changes between test and control groups in terms of alveolar bone changes (p> 0.05). Within the limits of this study, the sites grafted using bovine-derived xenograft with 10% collagen in combination with a collagen membrane showed no statistical differences in terms of vertical and horizontal bone resorption compared to control groups. Ridge preservation in posterior area failed to show clinically relevant benefits in sites presenting integrity of alveolar bone walls and adequate buccal bone wall thickness.

Thickness of the buccal bone wall and root angulation in the maxilla and mandible: an approach to cone beam computed tomography

BackgroundThe objective of this paper is to anatomically describe the bone morphology in the maxillary and mandibular tooth areas, which might help in planning post-extraction implants.MethodsCBCT images (Planmeca ProMax 3D) of 403 teeth (208 upper teeth and 195 lower teeth) were obtained from 49 patients referred to the Dental School of Seville from January to December 2014. The thickness of the facial wall was measured at the crest, point A, 4 mm below, point B, and at the apex, point C. The second parameter was the angle formed between the dental axis and the axis of the basal bone.ResultsA total of 403 teeth were measured. In the maxilla, 89.4% of incisors, 93.94% of canines, 78% of premolars and 70.5% of molars had a buccal bone wall thickness less than the ideal 2 mm. In the mandible, 73.5% of incisors, 49% of canines, 64% of premolars and 53% of molars had < 1 mm buccal bone thickness as measured at point B. The mean angulation in the maxilla was 11.67 ± 6.37° for incisors, 16.88 ± 7.93° for canines, 13.93 ± 8.6° for premolars, and 9.89 ± 4.8° for molars. In the mandible, the mean values were 10.63 ± 8.76° for incisors, 10.98 ± 7.36° for canines, 10.54 ± 5.82° for premolars and 16.19 ± 11.22° for molars.ConclusionsThe high incidence of a buccal wall thickness of less than 2 mm in over 80% of the assessed sites indicates the need for additional regeneration procedures, and several locations may also require custom abutments to solve the angulation problems for screw-retained crowns.

A prospective, randomized, controlled study using OsseoSpeed™ implants placed in maxillary fresh extraction socket: soft tissues response

The aim of this work was to study the peri-implant soft tissues response, by evaluating both the recession and the papilla indexes, of patients treated with implants with two different configurations. In addition, data were stratified by tooth category, smoking habit and thickness of buccal bone wall. The clinical trial was designed as a prospective, randomized-controlled multicenter study. Adults in need of one or more implants replacing teeth to be removed in the maxilla within the region 15-25 were recruited. Following tooth extraction, the site was randomly allocated to receive either a cylindrical or conical/cylindrical implant. The following parameters were studied: (i) Soft tissue recession (REC) measured by comparing the gingival zenith (GZ) score at baseline (permanent restoration) with that of the yearly follow-up visits over a period of 3 years (V1, V2 and V3). (ii) Interdental Papilla Index (PI): PI measurements were performed at baseline and compared with that of the follow-up visits. In addition, data were stratified by different variables: tooth category: anterior (incisors and canine) and posterior (first and second premolar); smoking habit: patient smoker (habitual or occasional smoker at inclusion) or non-smoker (non-smoker or ex-smoker at inclusion) and thickness of buccal bone wall (TB): TB ≤ 1 mm (thin buccal wall) or TB > 1 mm (thick buccal wall). A total of 93 patients were treated with 93 implants. At the surgical re-entry one implant was mobile and then removed; moreover, one patient was lost to follow-up. Ninety-one patients were restored with 91 implant-supported permanent single crowns. After the 3-year follow-up, a mean gain of 0.23 mm of GZ was measured; moreover, 79% and 72% of mesial and distal papillae were classified as >50%/ complete, respectively. From the stratification analysis, not significant differences were found between the mean GZ scores of implants with TB ≤ 1 mm (thin buccal wall) and TB > 1 mm (thick buccal wall), respectively (P < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U-test) at baseline, at V1, V2 and V3 follow-up visits. Also, the other variables did not seem to influence GZ changes over the follow-up period. Moreover, a re-growth of the interproximal mesial and distal papillae was the general trend observed independently from the variables studied. Immediate single implant treatment may be considered a predictable option regarding soft tissue stability over a period of 3 years of follow-up. An overall buccal soft tissue stability was observed during the GZ changes from the baseline to the 3 years of follow-up with a mean GZ reduction of 0.23 mm. A nearly full papillary re-growth can be detectable over a minimum period of 2 years of follow-up for both cylindrical and conical/cylindrical implants. Both the interproximal papilla filling and the midfacial mucosa stability were not influenced by variables such as type of fixture configuration, tooth category, smoke habit, and thickness of buccal bone wall of ≤ 1 mm (thin buccal wall).