ABSTRACT
Objective@#To examine the root position of the maxillary central incisors and to provide clinical reference before the immediate implant placement.@*Methods@#Cone-beam CT (CBCT) data of the maxillary central incisors of 934 patients (934 incisors) was selected and the root position classsified. The sagittal root position in the alveolar bone was classified as buccal, middle, or palatal. The buccally positoined type was further classified into three subtypes of Ⅰ,Ⅱ, and Ⅲ.@*Results@#Most of the maxillary incisor root (95.4% [891/934]) was positioned buccally. Among the buccal-type incisors, the subtypes Ⅰ, Ⅱ and Ⅲ accounted for 47.5% (423/891), 44.2% (394/891), and 8.3% (74/891). In the 4 mm apical to the cemento-enamel junction and the middle of the root, the thickest buccal bone wall was 0.86 and 0.95 mm, the thickest palatal bone wall was 1.65 and 2.37 mm. In the apical location, the thickest buccal bone wall was 1.89 mm, the thickest palatal bone wall was 7.83 mm.@*Conclusions@#Most of the maxillary central incisors studied are positioned buccally, and half of these patients have adequate buccal bone and are suitable for immediate implant placement.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:Biomechanical compatibility is the necessary condition to ensure the stable osseointegration with implants that then can function over a long period; therefore, it is especialy important to get knowledge about distribution of stress and strain between the maxilary central incisor and its surrounding bone tissue. OBJECTIVE: Based on five different anatomical types of natural teeth, to study the regularity of stress distribution between the maxilary central incisor root and implant.METHODS: According to the five different anatomical types of natural maxilary central incisors, UGNX and ANSYS were used to set up three-dimensional finite element models (B1, B2, M1, M2, P1) for the implant and surrounding structures, which were under 100 N static load at angles of 0o, 30o, 45o, 60o, 90o with the long axis of teeth. Then, the stress distribution between the five kinds of maxilary central incisor roots and implants was analyzed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:Among the five different anatomical types, the equivalent stress for both the natural central incisor and implant were increased with the increasing of angles, and the implant had a higher raising trend. The equivalent stress for the natural tooth concentrated upon B1 for the maximum value and M1 for the minimum value; while the equivalent stress for the implant focused on the maximum value at M1 and the minimum value at M2. There was a gap of 2%-31% between the equivalent stresses for the natural tooth roots and a gap of 4%-21% for the implants. The stress distribution range for the implant was just smaler than that for the natural tooth roots. It implies that the bit force of implant and natural tooth is in positive proportion to the bite angles, and the bite force that implant can burden is smaler than that the central incisor can.