Integrated correlation analysis of the thickness of buccal bone and gingiva of maxillary incisors.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate the integrated correlation between the buccal bone and gingival thickness of the anterior maxilla, and to gain insight into the reference plane selection when measuring these two tissues before treatment with implants. METHODOLOGY: Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and model scans of 350 human subjects were registered in the coDiagnostiX software to obtain sagittal maxillary incisor sections. The buccal bone thickness was measured at the coronal (2, 4, and 6 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction [CEJ]) and apical (0, 2, and 4 mm coronal to the apex plane) regions. The buccal gingival thickness was measured at the supra-CEJ (0, 1mm coronal to the CEJ) and sub-CEJ regions (1, 2, 4, and 6 mm apical to the CEJ). Canonical correlation analysis was performed for intergroup correlation analysis and investigation of key parameters. RESULTS: The mean thicknesses of the buccal bone and gingiva at different levels were 0.64~1.88 mm and 0.66~1.37 mm, respectively. There was a strong intergroup canonical correlation between the thickness of the buccal bone and that of the gingiva (r=0.837). The thickness of the buccal bone and gingiva at 2 mm apical to the CEJ are the most important indices with the highest canonical correlation coefficient and loadings. The most and least prevalent subgroups were the thin bone and thick gingiva group (accounting for 47.6%) and the thick bone and thick gingiva group (accounting for 8.6%). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this retrospective study, the thickness of the buccal bone is significantly correlated with that of the buccal gingiva, and the 2 mm region apical to the CEJ is a vital plane for quantifying the thickness of these two tissues.

Integrated correlation analysis of the thickness of buccal bone and gingiva of maxillary incisors

Abstract Objective This study aimed to validate the integrated correlation between the buccal bone and gingival thickness of the anterior maxilla, and to gain insight into the reference plane selection when measuring these two tissues before treatment with implants. Methodology Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and model scans of 350 human subjects were registered in the coDiagnostiX software to obtain sagittal maxillary incisor sections. The buccal bone thickness was measured at the coronal (2, 4, and 6 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction [CEJ]) and apical (0, 2, and 4 mm coronal to the apex plane) regions. The buccal gingival thickness was measured at the supra-CEJ (0, 1mm coronal to the CEJ) and sub-CEJ regions (1, 2, 4, and 6 mm apical to the CEJ). Canonical correlation analysis was performed for intergroup correlation analysis and investigation of key parameters. Results The mean thicknesses of the buccal bone and gingiva at different levels were 0.64~1.88 mm and 0.66~1.37 mm, respectively. There was a strong intergroup canonical correlation between the thickness of the buccal bone and that of the gingiva (r=0.837). The thickness of the buccal bone and gingiva at 2 mm apical to the CEJ are the most important indices with the highest canonical correlation coefficient and loadings. The most and least prevalent subgroups were the thin bone and thick gingiva group (accounting for 47.6%) and the thick bone and thick gingiva group (accounting for 8.6%). Conclusion Within the limitations of this retrospective study, the thickness of the buccal bone is significantly correlated with that of the buccal gingiva, and the 2 mm region apical to the CEJ is a vital plane for quantifying the thickness of these two tissues

The influence of guide stabilizers and their application sequences on trueness and precision of surgical guides in free end situations: An in vitro analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of guide stabilizers and their application sequences on implant placement accuracy of guided implant surgery in multiple teeth loss at free end. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, 96 implants were placed in the regions of #34, #36, and #37 of 32 identical mandibular models. The influence of using guide stabilizers or not (group A and group B) and various guide stabilizers application sequences (group B: #34 → #36 → #37; group C: #36 → #34 → #37; group D: #37 → #34 → #36) on implant placement trueness and precision was investigated. Data were analyzed using T-tests and one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: Group B showed significant benefits in enhancing implant placement precision. Compared to group A, it resulted in reducing 3D-deviation at crest and 2D deviation in vestibular-oral direction at both crest and apex. Furthermore, group D demonstrated greater improvement in global implant placement precision by reducing 2D deviation in mesial-distal direction at both crest and apex. Among the three different stabilizer application sequences, group D exhibited the highest level of implant placement precision. CONCLUSIONS: In cases of missing teeth at distal free end, the use of guide stabilizers and their application sequences does not have a significant impact on implant placement trueness. However, they do improve implant placement precision compared to methods that do not utilize guide stabilizers. Specifically, applying a guide stabilizer first at the furthest implant site to change teeth loss classification from free end to edentulous space with posterior support is the most reliable sequence.