Using three-dimensional digital models to establish alveolar morphotype
Abstract
Background: The aim of the study was to propose a classification of alveolar morphotype and assess a relationship between extraction/non-extraction orthodontic treatment and changes to the alveolar process.
Materials and methods: Seventy-five subjects (mean age = 23.2, SD = 5.1) were selected. Areas of the sections of the alveolar process (ASAP) at three different levels (0, 2, and 4 mm) were measured on pre- and post-treatment three-dimensional digital models. Method reliability was analysed using Dahlberg’s formula, intraclass correlation coefficient, and paired t-tests.
Results: The mean ASAP was smallest at level 0 and largest at level 4. Pre-treatment ASAP < 773 mm2, < 863.9 mm2, and < 881.1 mm2 at levels 0, 2, and 4 mm, respectively, should be described as a “thin” alveolar morphotype. Regression models showed that pre-treatment ASAP was a predictor of the change of the alveolus during treatment only at level 2.
Conclusions: Patients for whom pre-treatment ASAP is < 773 mm2, < 863.9 mm2, and < 881.1 mm2 at levels 0, 2, and 4 mm, respectively, should be described as having a “thin” alveolar morphotype. In these patients, extraction treatment, associated with a decrease in the alveolus area, should be exercised with caution.
Keywords: alveolar processdigital modelscanning
References
- Aarts BE, Convens J, Bronkhorst EM, et al. Cessation of facial growth in subjects with short, average, and long facial types - Implications for the timing of implant placement. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015; 43(10): 2106–2111.
- Ahn HW, Moon SC, Baek SH. Morphometric evaluation of changes in the alveolar bone and roots of the maxillary anterior teeth before and after en masse retraction using cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2013; 83(2): 212–221.
- Bailey LT, Esmailnejad A, Almeida MA. Stability of the palatal rugae as landmarks for analysis of dental casts in extraction and nonextraction cases. Angle Orthod. 1996; 66(1): 73–78.
- Baloul S. Osteoclastogenesis and osteogenesis during tooth movement. Tooth Movement. 2016; 18: 75–79.
- Duterloo HS. The impact of orthodontic treatment procedures on the remodelling of alveolar bone. Orthodontische Studieweek. Ned Ver Orthod Studie. 1975: 5–21.
- Grauer D, Cevidanes LH, Tyndall D, et al. Registration of orthodontic digital models. Craniofac Growth Ser. 2011; 48: 377–391.
- Güleç A, Kaçıra BK, Kütahya H, et al. Morphometric analysis of the lumbar vertebrae in the Turkish population using three-dimensional computed tomography: correlation with sex, age, and height. Folia Morphol. 2017; 76(3): 433–439.
- Handelman CS. The anterior alveolus: its importance in limiting orthodontic treatment and its influence on the occurrence of iatrogenic sequelae. Angle Orthod. 1996; 66(2): 95–109; discussion 109.
- Krishnan V, Davidovitch Z. On a path to unfolding the biological mechanisms of orthodontic tooth movement. J Dent Res. 2009; 88(7): 597–608.
- Kuijpers MAR, Chiu YT, Nada RM, et al. Three-dimensional imaging methods for quantitative analysis of facial soft tissues and skeletal morphology in patients with orofacial clefts: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2014; 9(4): e93442.
- Marinković S, Milić I, Djorić I, et al. Morphometric multislice computed tomography examination of the craniovertebral junction in neck flexion and extension. Folia Morphol. 2017; 76(1): 100–109.
- Nouri M, Abdi AH, Farzan A, et al. Measurement of the buccolingual inclination of teeth: manual technique vs 3-dimensional software. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014; 146(4): 522–529.
- Pachêco-Pereira C, De Luca Canto G, Major PW, et al. Variation of orthodontic treatment decision-making based on dental model type: A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2015; 85(3): 501–509.
- Rischen RJ, Breuning KH, Bronkhorst EM, et al. Records needed for orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2013; 8(11): e74186.
- Sadek MM, Sabet NE, Hassan IT, et al. Alveolar bone mapping in subjects with different vertical facial dimensions. Eur J Orthod. 2015; 37(2): 194–201.
- Salti L, Holtfreter B, Pink C, et al. Estimating effects of craniofacial morphology on gingival recession and clinical attachment loss. J Clin Periodontol. 2017; 44(4): 363–371.
- Sarikaya S, Haydar B, Ciğer S, et al. Changes in alveolar bone thickness due to retraction of anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 122(1): 15–26.
- 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(4 Suppl): e377–e389.
- Thilander B, Nyman S, Karring T, et al. Bone regeneration in alveolar bone dehiscences related to orthodontic tooth movements. Eur J Orthod. 1983; 5(2): 105–114.
- Wainwright WM. Faciolingual tooth movement: its influence on the root and cortical plate. Am J Orthod. 1973; 64(3): 278–302.
- Wennström JL. Mucogingival considerations in orthodontic treatment. Semin Orthod. 1996; 2(1): 46–54.
- Wise GE, King GJ. Mechanisms of tooth eruption and orthodontic tooth movement. J Dent Res. 2008; 87(5): 414–434.
- Zhang S, Wang X, Ren X, et al. Applications of digital technology for the morphological study of C3-C7 vertebral arch pedicle in children. Folia Morphol (Warsz). 2017; 76(3): 426–432.
