English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  To apply CBCT to investigate the anatomical relationship between the mandibular molar and alveolar bone, aimed to provide clinical guidelines for the design of implant restoration.    Methods  201 CBCT data were reevaluated to measure height of the alveolar process (EF), width of the alveolar process (GH), width of the basal bone (IJ), the angle between the long axis of the first molar and the alveolar bone (∠a) and the angle between the long axis of the alveolar bone and basal bone (∠b). The angle and width were measured to determine the implant-prosthodontic classification of the morphology in the left lower first molar (36) and right lower first molar (46). All measurements were performed on the improved cross-sectional images.    Results  EF, GH and IJ were measured as (10.83 ± 1.31) mm, (13.93 ± 2.00) mm and (12.68 ± 1.96) mm for 36, respectively; and (10.87 ± 1.24) mm, (13.86 ± 1.93) mm and (12.60 ± 1.90) mm for 46, respectively. No statistical significance was observed in EF, GH, IJ, ∠a and ∠b between 36 and 46 (all  P  > 0.05). The morphology was divided into three categories including the straight (68.7–69.2%), oblique (19.9–20.4%) and concave types (11%). Each type was consisted of two subcategories.    Conclusions  The proposed classification could provide evidence for appropriate selection and direction design of the mandibular molar implant in clinical. The concave type was the most difficult to implant with the highest risk of lingual perforation. The implant length, width, direction required more attention.

Influence of bone anatomical morphology of mandibular molars on dental implant based on CBCT