Topographic analysis of the mandibular symphysis in a normal occlusion population using cone-beam computed tomography

Lee,Ji‑Eun; Lee,Yoon‑Jin; Jin,Seong‑Ho; Kim,Yoonji; Kook,Yoon‑Ah; Ko,Youngkyung; Park,Jun‑Beom

doi:10.3892/etm.2015.2842

Topographic analysis of the mandibular symphysis in a normal occlusion population using cone-beam computed tomography

Authors:
- Ji‑Eun Lee
- Yoon‑Jin Lee
- Seong‑Ho Jin
- Yoonji Kim
- Yoon‑Ah Kook
- Youngkyung Ko
- Jun‑Beom Park
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Periodontics, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Republic of Korea, Department of Orthodontics, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Republic of Korea
Published online on: November 2, 2015 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2015.2842
Pages: 2150-2156

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

At present, the relationship between the morphological characteristics of the sympheseal region and occlusion has not been well documented. The aim of the present study was to investigate the following, using cone‑beam computed tomography (CBCT): Interforaminal distance, the anterior loop, labial bone thickness at the tooth apex, cortical bone thickness, and the basal bone height from the apex of the tooth to the base of the mandible. Three‑dimensional CBCT was performed on 20 normal occlusion subjects (9 males and 11 females; mean age=21.9±3.0 years); the mean interforaminal distance was 53.1±3.6 mm, with 85% of the participants demonstrating a mental foramen located below the second premolars on both sides. The mean anterior loop was 1.9±0.8 mm, the mean horizontal distance value was 4.5±1.3 mm, and the mean cortical bone thickness value was 2.3±0.5 mm. An increasing tendency for cortical bone thickness was seen from the central incisor to the second premolar. The mean vertical distance value was 20.3±3.1 mm. Decreasing tendency of vertical distance was seen from the central incisor to the second premolar. Furthermore, the width (mental foramina of both sides and their anterior loops), height (teeth apices and the inferior border of the mandible), depth (cortical bone thickness of the symphysis), and safety margins for vital anatomical structures (anterior loop, tooth apex, and inferior border of mandible) should be taken into account prior to symphyseal block‑bone harvesting. The results of the present study suggested that a pre‑operative evaluation with CBCT may be useful for diagnosis and treatment planning, and for minimizing complications during block-bone graft.

View Figures

View References

1	Rogers GF and Greene AK: Autogenous bone graft: Basic science and clinical implications. J Craniofac Surg. 23:323–327. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Misch CM: Comparison of intraoral donor sites for onlay grafting prior to implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 12:767–776. 1997.PubMed/NCBI
3	Clavero J and Lundgren S: Ramus or chin grafts for maxillary sinus inlay and local onlay augmentation: Comparison of donor site morbidity and complications. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 5:154–160. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Borstlap WA, Heidbuchel KL, Freihofer HP and Kuijpers-Jagtman AM: Early secondary bone grafting of alveolar cleft defects. A comparison between chin and rib grafts. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 18:201–205. 1990. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Lin KY, Bartlett SP, Yaremchuk MJ, Fallon M, Grossman RF and Whitaker LA: The effect of rigid fixation on the survival of onlay bone grafts: An experimental study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 86:449–456. 1990. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Smith JD and Abramson M: Membranous vs endochondrial bone autografts. Arch Otolaryngol. 99:203–205. 1974. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Zins JE and Whitaker LA: Membranous versus endochondral bone: Implications for craniofacial reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 72:778–785. 1983. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Kusiak JF, Zins JE and Whitaker LA: The early revascularization of membranous bone. Plast Reconstr Surg. 76:510–516. 1985. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Misch CM, Misch CE, Resnik RR and Ismail YH: Reconstruction of maxillary alveolar defects with mandibular symphysis grafts for dental implants: A preliminary procedural report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 7:360–366. 1992.PubMed/NCBI
10	Nóia CF, Ortega-Lopes R, Olate S, Duque TM, de Moraes M and Mazzonetto R: Prospective clinical assessment of morbidity after chin bone harvest. J Craniofac Surg. 22:2195–2198. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Raghoebar GM, Louwerse C, Kalk WW and Vissink A: Morbidity of chin bone harvesting. Clin Oral Implants Res. 12:503–507. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Jin SH, Park JB, Kim N, Park S, Kim KJ, Kim Y, Kook YA and Ko Y: The thickness of alveolar bone at the maxillary canine and premolar teeth in normal occlusion. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 42:173–178. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Al-Ani O, Nambiar P, Ha KO and Ngeow WC: Safe zone for bone harvesting from the interforaminal region of the mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res. 24(Suppl A100): 115–121. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Denissen HW, Kalk W, Veldhuis HA and van Waas MA: Anatomic consideration for preventive implantation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 8:191–196. 1993.PubMed/NCBI
15	Neiva RF, Gapski R and Wang HL: Morphometric analysis of implant-related anatomy in Caucasian skulls. J Periodontol. 75:1061–1067. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Arzouman MJ, Otis L, Kipnis V and Levine D: Observations of the anterior loop of the inferior alveolar canal. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 8:295–300. 1993.PubMed/NCBI
17	Ritter L, Neugebauer J, Mischkowski RA, Dreiseidler T, Rothamel D, Richter U, Zinser MJ and Zoller JE: Evaluation of the course of the inferior alveolar nerve in the mental foramen by cone beam computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 27:1014–1021. 2012.PubMed/NCBI
18	Bavitz JB, Harn SD, Hansen CA and Lang M: An anatomical study of mental neurovascular bundle-implant relationships. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 8:563–567. 1993.PubMed/NCBI
19	Misch C: Root form surgery in the edentulous anterior and posterior mandible: Implant insertion. Contemporary Implant Dentistry (Third). (St. Louis, MO). Mosby Elsevier. 221–226. 2008.
20	Mardinger O, Chaushu G, Arensburg B, Taicher S and Kaffe I: Anterior loop of the mental canal: An anatomical-radiologic study. Implant Dent. 9:120–125. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Kuzmanovic DV, Payne AG, Kieser JA and Dias GJ: Anterior loop of the mental nerve: A morphological and radiographic study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 14:464–471. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Greenstein G and Tarnow D: The mental foramen and nerve: Clinical and anatomical factors related to dental implant placement: A literature review. J Periodontol. 77:1933–1943. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Solar P, Ulm C, Frey G and Matejka M: A classification of the intraosseous paths of the mental nerve. Int J Maxillofac Implants. 9:339–344. 1994.
24	Hunt DR and Jovanovic SA: Autogenous bone harvesting: A chin graft technique for particulate and monocortical bone blocks. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 19:165–173. 1999.PubMed/NCBI
25	Pommer B, Tepper G, Gahleitner A, Zechner W and Watzek G: New safety margins for chin bone harvesting based on the course of the mandibular incisive canal in CT. Clin Oral Implants Res. 19:1312–1316. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Montazem A, Valauri DV, St-Hilaire H and Buchbinder D: The mandibular symphysis as a donor site in maxillofacial bone grafting: A quantitative anatomic study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 58:1368–1371. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Garvin HM and Ruff CB: Sexual dimorphism in skeletal browridge and chin morphologies determined using a new quantitative method. Am J Phys Anthropol. 147:661–670. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Wang Q, Ashley DW and Dechow PC: Regional, ontogenetic, and sex-related variations in elastic properties of cortical bone in baboon mandibles. Am J Phys Anthropol. 141:526–549. 2010.PubMed/NCBI
29	Lee KA, Kim MS, Hong JY, Lee JS, Choi SH, Chai JK and Jung UW: Anatomical topography of the mandibular symphysis in the Korean population: A computed tomography analysis. Clin Anat. 27:592–597. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI