We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 32 (2017), No. 6     21. Nov. 2017
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 32 (2017), No. 6  (21.11.2017)

Page 1273-1280, doi:10.11607/jomi.5566, PubMed:28518181

A Semi-automatic Algorithm for Preliminary Assessment of Labial Gingiva and Alveolar Bone Thickness of Maxillary Anterior Teeth
Chen, Sheng-Hung / Chan, Hsun-Liang / Lu, Yongning / Ong, Sim-Heng / Wang, Hom-Lay / Ko, Eng Hong / Chang, Po-Chun
Purpose: Soft and hard tissue volumes are critical for implant placement and long-term stability. Although the literature has adequately addressed tissue biotypes of Western populations, pertinent information about Asian populations is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the soft and hard tissue profiles of the maxillary anterior teeth of the Taiwanese population using a semi-automatic algorithm.
Materials and Methods: Cone beam computed tomography images of 11 adults with well-aligned maxillary anterior teeth were overlaid with those of cast models, based on the tooth crowns manually outlined by two independent observers. Each tooth was digitally trisected mesiodistally and apicocoronally. The thicknesses of the labial gingiva and alveolar bone were measured using a customized software program.
Results: No obvious difference between the observers was noted regarding the dimension of tooth crowns. The average thicknesses of the labial gingiva, the labial alveolar bone, and the palatal alveolar bone were 1.76 ± 0.11 mm, 1.02 ± 0.12 mm, and 1.80 ± 0.31 mm, respectively, with no significant differences between teeth. All parameters were thicker in the apical region than in the cervical region, and the alveolar bone was thinner in the midlabial region of incisors than in the interproximal regions. The thinnest areas were the midcervical compartment of the right central incisor (0.53 ± 0.33 mm) for the labial gingiva, the midcervical compartment of the right lateral incisor (0.23 ± 0.10 mm) for the labial alveolar bone, and the mesiocervical compartment of the left central incisor (0.33 ± 0.09 mm) for the palatal alveolar bone.
Conclusion: This study presents an objective and comprehensive methodology for evaluating the soft and hard tissue profiles of maxillary anterior teeth and may be of value for presurgical planning for immediate implant placement. The results suggest that profiles of the Taiwanese subjects are similar to profiles of Western populations.

Keywords: alveolar process, cone beam computed tomography, dental implants, gingiva