| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2014 | Volume
: 2
| Issue : 3 | Page : 156-161 |
|
|
Evaluation of soft tissue and cortical bone thickness at orthodontic implant sites using computed tomography
BR Arun Kumar1, MB Raghuraj1, Kenneth F. H. Tan2, Rabindra S Nayak3, Azam Pasha3, K Vinay3, Anjali Narayan3
1 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Dr. Syamala Reddy Dental College Hospital and Research Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
2 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Oxford Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
3 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, M. R. Ambedkar Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
Correspondence Address:
M B Raghuraj
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Dr. Syamala Reddy Dental College Hospital and Research Centre, #111/1, SGR College Main Road, Munnekolala, Marathalli (Post), Bengaluru - 560 037, Karnataka
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/2321-3825.140688
|
|
|
Objectives: The aim of this study is to investigate advantageous to the clinician and patient to carry on a computed tomography (CT) investigation in order to have a successful outcome for using orthodontic implants. Materials and Methods: This study was carried out on a sample of 10 patients (5 male and 5 female patients) aged ranges between 16 and 25 years who reported to the Department of Orthodontics, M.R. Ambedkar Dental College, for the treatment of malocclusion. Using CT, the bucco-palatal thickness of the soft-tissue and cortical bone at the posterior region of the maxilla between 1 st PM and 2 nd PM (Group I), 2 nd PM and 1 st M (Group II) and 1 st M and 2 nd M (Group III) were measured at four different levels, at points a, b, c, d, (soft-tissue) and A, B, C, D (cortical bone) and on the palatal side at points e, f, g, h (soft-tissue) and E, F, G, H (cortical bone) at an interval of 2 mm each. Results: All groups showed soft-tissue thickness was greater on the palatal side than on buccal side and the palatal cortical bone thickness was greater in Group I and III except in Group II where buccal cortical bone was greater. Conclusion: CT has been a reliable tool to assess implant placement sites. It will also help in assessing and avoiding the sinus perforation, root injury, soft-tissue complication, and utilizing appropriate cortical bone thickness. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
