Author/Authors :
Panjnoush, Mehrdad Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology - School of Dentistry - Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , Eil, Nakisa Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology - School of Dentistry - Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran , Kheirandish, Yasaman Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology - School of Dentistry - Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , Mofidi, Niloufar Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology - School of Dentistry - Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran , Shamshiri, Ahmad Reza Department of Community Oral Health - Dental Research Center - Dentistry Research Institute - School of Dentistry - Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract :
Introduction: Nowadays, using implants as a choice in patient's treatment plans has become
popular. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of mandibular lingual and
maxillary buccal concavity, mean concavity depth and angle and its relation to age and gender.
Materials &Methods: In 200 CBCT, concavity depth and angle were measured in 2 mm superior
to the inferior alveolar canal in the mandibular first molar area and in 1 mm distance from nasal
floor in the midpoint region of maxillary lateral incisor and canine. Concavity depth and angle
relationships with age and gender have been evaluated using Spearman Correlation and a t-test.
Results: Mean and standard deviation of lingual concavity, concavity angle and ridge angle in
mandible were 1.3±1.54 mm, 15.45±16.19 and 10.13±6.1. Mean and standard deviation of buccal
concavity and concavity angle in maxilla were 5.35±1.03 mm and 30.6±5.75. Mandibular
concavity depth was zero in 44% of subjects and more than zero in 56%. Results were more than 3
mm in maxillary samples. There was a linear relationship between mandibular concavity depth and
age equaled to -0.27, p=0.007 and for mandibular concavity angle and age equaled to -0.25,
p=0.01. There was no significant relationship between mandibular ridge angle and age. In maxilla,
there was no linear relationship between age and gender with any other variables.
Conclusion: It is necessary to provide more information on these regions' anatomy using CBCT
cross sections before implant placement.
Keywords :
Mandible , Cone beam computed tomography , Dental implants , Anatomy