Facial alveolar bone thickness and modifying factors of anterior maxillary teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cone-beam computed tomography studies.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the anatomy of the facial alveolar bone (FAB), provides a prognostic tool for estimating the degree of dimensional ridge alterations after tooth extraction. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine the FAB thickness and modifying factors of anterior maxillary teeth measured by CBCT scans. A secondary objective was to assess the facial distance from the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) to the bone crest. METHODS: An electronic search was made of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar up to December 2019. Studies that analyze and quantitatively compare FAB thickness at maxillary teeth by CBCT scans were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was appraised using the ROBINS-I tool and the overall meta-evidence certainty using the GRADE approach. A single means random-effects meta-analysis was performed to obtain the weighted mean for 95% confidence interval. A meta-regression of covariates and subgroup analysis was conducted. The nullity Qh test and I2 index for heterogeneity was estimated. RESULTS: 2560 potentially relevant articles were recorded from which 29 studies were selected for the qualitative analysis, including 17,321 teeth. Seventeen studies considered the facial bone crest, and 12 the CEJ as a reference point for their measurements. Mean FAB thickness was ≤ 1 mm in maxillary incisors and canines (0.75-1.05 mm) and 1-2 mm in premolars. Patients over 50 years of age, females and thin gingival phenotype was associated with thinner FAB at some apico-coronal locations of maxillary incisors and canines. The geographical setting was an effect modifier that could explain up to 87% of the heterogeneity in FAB thickness, being Asian populations that showed the lowest FAB thickness values. The CEJ-bone crest distance was 2-2.5 mm in all teeth analyzed. Population over 50 years of age exhibited greater CEJ-bone crest distances, and males also showed a trend for greater distance. Evidence certainty has shown moderate quality in most analysis subsets. CONCLUSIONS: Facial alveolar bone at anterior maxillary teeth is thin, heterogeneous in width along its apico-coronal dimensions, and increases in thickness in maxillary premolars. The CEJ-bone crest distance presented homogeneous and similar values in all teeth analyzed.

Radiological implications of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in posterior areas. A cone-beam computed tomography study.

BACKGROUND: Subcrestal implant placement has been suggested as a method that could contribute to maintain the periimplant soft and hard tissues in comparison with crestal placement. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between implant placement at different depths in the alveolar bone and (a) the thickness of the buccal bone plate (BBP); and (b) crestal cortical bone thickness, based on the use of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed, analyzing CBCT scans from the database of the Oral Surgery Unit of the University of Valencia. Individuals with single missing teeth in posterior sectors were included. Two trained dentists used a software application to plan implant placement at four different depths from the bone crest (from 0-2 mm subcrestal). The thickness of the BBP was measured at each established depth, tracing a line from the implant platform to the outermost part of the facial alveolar bone, and the ratio between the implant platform and cortical bone thickness was calculated. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 64 patients. In the case of implants placed in a crestal position, the distance from the platform to the BBP was 1.99±1.10 mm. This distance increased significantly (p<0.001) with the planned implant placement depth, reaching an average of 2.90±1.22 mm when placement was 2 mm subcrestal. Subcrestal implant placement at this depth implied surpassing the cortical bone in 91% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: Radiological planning of implant placement in a subcrestal position results in a greater distance from the implant platform to the BBP. In general terms, planning implant placement at a depth of 2 mm subcrestal surpassed the cortical bone in 91% of the cases. Key words:Subcrestal implant, cortical bone thickness, buccal bone plate, cone-beam computed tomography.

Facial Alveolar Bone Width at the First and Second Maxillary Premolars in Healthy Patients: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the thickness of the facial alveolar bone at the first and second maxillary premolars and determinate the percentage of premolars that reached 2 mm in width. A retrospective study was performed, analyzing cone beam computed tomography scans from the database of the Oral Surgery Unit of the University of Valencia. Patients with periodontal disease, orthodontic treatment, absence among the first maxillary molars, premolars with endodontic treatment, or prosthetic restorations were excluded. The facial alveolar bone width was measured at 1, 2, 3, and 5 mm apical to the vestibular bone peak. A total of 44 patients were included in the study, with 72 first premolars and 72 second premolars analyzed. A descriptive analysis was performed and the normal means were assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The average width of the facial alveolar bone at first and second maxillary premolars was respectively: 1.41 ± 0.50 and 1.72 ± 0.56 at 1 mm, 1.68 ± 0.72 and 2.23 ± 0.66 at 2 mm, 1.71 ± 0.89 and 2.43 ± 0.82 at 3 mm, 1.44 ± 1.00 and 2.31 ± 1.06 at 5 mm from the vestibular bone peak. The facial alveolar bone width at the second maxillary premolars was greater than at the first maxillary premolars at all points measured. This information should be taken in account when planning immediate implants. Further studies are needed to analyze bone resorption at maxillary premolars to better understand facial alveolar bone width influence in implant treatment.