z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Evaluation of Buccal Cortical Bone Thickness in Wet Mandibles from Cadavers Using Computed Tomography Scan and Stereomicroscope
Author(s) -
Kyumi Vinod Shethiya,
Gauri Vichare
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
apos trends in orthodontics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2321-4600
pISSN - 2321-1407
DOI - 10.4103/apos.apos_92_17
Subject(s) - cementoenamel junction , cortical bone , interdental consonant , cadaver , premolar , cadaveric spasm , molar , computed tomography , anatomy , tomography , cone beam computed tomography , medicine , materials science , dentistry , radiology
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.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here