Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences
Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences Login  | Users Online: 1372  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
    Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions | Online submission


DENTAL SCIENCE - ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 34-38

Estimation of soft- and hard-tissue thickness at implant sites


1 Department of Orthodontics, A.J. Institute of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Karnataka, India
2 Department of Orthodontics, Yenepoya University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Anil Kumar
Department of Orthodontics, A.J. Institute of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0975-7406.137384

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Anchorage control is a critical consideration when planning treatment for patients with dental and skeletal malocclusions. To obtain sufficient stability of implants, the thickness of the soft tissue and the cortical-bone in the placement site must be considered; so as to provide an anatomical map in order to assist the clinician in the placement of the implants. Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the thickness of soft- and hard-tissue. Materials and Methods: To measure soft tissue and cortical-bone thicknesses, 12 maxillary cross-sectional specimens were obtained from the cadavers, which were made at three maxillary mid-palatal suture areas: The interdental area between the first and second premolars (Group 1), the second premolar and the first molar (Group 2), and the first and second molars (Group 3). Sectioned samples along with reference rulers were digitally scanned. Scanned images were calibrated and measurements were made with image-analysis software. We measured the thickness of soft and hard-tissues at five sectional areas parallel to the buccopalatal cementoenamel junction (CEJ) line at 2-mm intervals and also thickness of soft tissue at the six landmarks including the incisive papilla (IP) on the palate. The line perpendicular to the occlusal plane was made and measurement was taken at 4-mm intervals from the closest five points to IP. Results: (1) Group 1:6 mm from CEJ in buccal side and 2 mm from CEJ in palatal side. (2) Group 2:8 mm from CEJ in buccal side and 4 mm from CEJ in palatal side. (3) Group 3:8 mm from CEJ in buccal side and 8 mm from CEJ in palatal side. Conclusions: The best site for placement of implant is with thinnest soft tissue and thickest hard tissue, which is in the middle from CEJ in buccal side and closest from CEJ in palatal side in Group 1 and faraway from CEJ in buccal side and closest from CEJ in palatal side in Group 2 and faraway from CEJ in buccal side and faraway from CEJ in palatal side in Group 3.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1260    
    Printed53    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded58    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal