Author:
Al-Rokhami Remsh Khaled,Sakran Karim Ahmed,Alhammadi Maged Sultan,Mashrah Mubarak Ahmed,Cao Baocheng,Alsomairi Majedh Abdo Ali,Al-Worafi Naseem Ali
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Objective
To investigate the position of the upper central incisor roots (U1) relative to the incisive canal (IC) among subjects with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion in various facial growth patterns.
Materials and Methods
240 cone beam computed tomography images of skeletal Class I and II maxillary or bimaxillary protrusive subjects with a mean age of 23.74 ± 3.73 years were enrolled according to their facial growth pattern. The IC volume was measured using Mimics 21 software (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium). The U1 inter-root distance, width of IC, and their proximity were estimated using Invivo6 software (Anatomage, San Jose, CA).
Results
The IC volume was slightly greater among the high angle facial group and female patients than the other groups. Overall, the IC width was greater than the U1 inter-root distance in 55.65%, 57.6%, and 65% among the average, low, and high angle facial groups, respectively, and in 56.5% and 62.9% of males and females, respectively. The overall anteroposterior (sagittal) distances between the U1 roots and IC were 4.36 ± 1.18, 4.78 ± 1.17, and 3.83 ± 0.90 mm among the average, low, and high angle facial groups, respectively.
Conclusions
The high angle facial group and female patients showed slightly greater IC dimensions than the other groups. The overall maximum sagittal distances between the U1 and IC were around 5.5, 6, and 4.7 mm among the average, low, and high angle facial groups, respectively. The low angle facial group and male patients tended to have greater sagittal distances. Therefore, the present findings could serve as a guideline when a considerable amount of upper incisor retraction is planned for Class I or II maxillary or bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion patients.
Publisher
The Angle Orthodontist (EH Angle Education & Research Foundation)
Reference21 articles.
1. Ackerman
JL,
Proffit
WR.
Soft tissue limitations in orthodontics: treatment planning guidelines.
Angle Orthod.
1997;
67(5):
327–
336.
2. Mulie
RM,
Hoeve
AT.
The limitations of tooth movement within the symphysis, studied with laminagraphy and standardized occlusal films.
J Clin Orthod.
1976;
10:
882–
893.
3. Proffit
W,
Fields
H,
Sarver
D.
Contemporary Orthodontics. 5th ed.
St Louis:
Elsevier;2013.
4. Horiuchi
A,
Hotokezaka
H,
Kobayashi
K.
Correlation between cortical plate proximity and apical root resorption.
Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop.
1998;
114(3):
311–
318.
5. Al-Amery
SM,
Nambiar
P,
Jamaludin
M,
John
J,
Ngeow
WC.
Cone beam computed tomography assessment of the maxillary incisive canal and foramen: Considerations of anatomical variations when placing immediate implants.
PLoS One2015;
10(2):
1–
16.