• Go to Home page
  • Facebook
  • 192
  • Print
  • Mail
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 21-27

Evaluation of buccal cortical bone thickness in wet mandibles from cadavers using computed tomography scan and stereomicroscope


Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Bharati Vidyapeeth Dental College and Hospital, Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Kyumi Vinod Shethiya
2/33, Bhuta Niwas, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Matunga, Mumbai - 400 019, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/apos.apos_92_17

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Cortical bone thickness is an important factor in mini implant stability. Many studies have evaluated cortical bone thickness by different methods, but this study is a step ahead in measuring cortical bone in wet mandibles from cadavers comparing thickness values from computed tomograms to images from a stereomicroscope (SM). In this study, we investigated buccal cortical bone thickness at three interdental areas using computed tomography (CT) scan and SM. Methods: From the CT scans of 30 wet human cadaveric mandibles, 2-dimensional slices through three interdental area (mesial of canine, interpremolar, and inter-molar) were generated. On these, cortical bone thickness was measured at 2, 4, and 6 mm from the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). The cortical bone thickness at same areas was compared with an SM. Results: By both methods, it was observed that thickness of cortical bone increased from mesial of canines toward the premolar region and then decreased in the molar region. Increase in thickness of cortical bone was observed with increase in height from the CEJ toward the apical region up to 6 mm. CT scans underestimated the measurements as compared to the SM method. Conclusions: The mean buccal cortical bone thickness at all interdental sites at 2, 4, and 6 mm from CEJ was 1.7 ± 0.4 by the CT scan method and 1.9 ± 0.5 by the SM method, indicating that results observed with the CT method were underestimated by 11% than SM method.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed405    
    Printed32    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded231    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal