Dental Journal of Advance Studies

Register      Login

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2023 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Thickness Around the Incisors in Various Skeletal Patterns: A Cephalometric Study

Deepankar Bhatnagar, Harjoy Khatria

Keywords : Alveolar bone width, Anteroposterior relationship, Dental compensations, Incisor inclination

Citation Information : Bhatnagar D, Khatria H. Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Thickness Around the Incisors in Various Skeletal Patterns: A Cephalometric Study. 2023; 11 (3):116-123.

DOI: 10.5005/djas-11014-0027

License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Published Online: 30-12-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Context: The major motivation for patients to get orthodontic treatment is the unesthetic placement of incisors. Therefore, correction of these anterior teeth is of prime importance along with their position in the alveolar housing during treatment planning. Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the alveolar bone thickness around the incisors in various skeletal patterns. Materials and methodology: A total of 128 lateral cephalograms of patients visiting the department were traced and divided into four groups (n = 32) based on the sagittal relationship including class I with a bimaxillary protrusion, class II division 1, class II division 2, and class III. The total root length, incisor inclinations, and labial and palatal alveolar bone at the middle and apex of maxillary and mandibular central incisors were measured and subject to statistical analysis using the statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS), version 25, software. Results: According to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) tests, there were significant differences between groups in alveolar bone widths of maxillary central incisors at apex and middle. While no significant difference was seen in the case of the middle of mandibular central incisor roots, the alveolar bone width was found to be significant in intergroup comparison at the apex. The inclination of incisors was also significantly different between the groups. Conclusion: The current study showed the dental compensation by central incisors in various sagittal patterns. The palatal bone in maxillary incisors was thinner in class I and class II division 1 due to proclination while the labial bone was thinner in incisors of class II division 2 and mandibular incisors in class III.

  1. Kerosuo H, Hausen H, Laine T, et al. The influence of incisal malocclusion on the social attractiveness of young adults in Finland. Eur J Orthod 1995;17(6):505–512. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/17.6.505.
  2. Garib DG, Yatabe MS, Ozawa TO, et al. Alveolar bone morphology under the perspective of the computed tomography: Defining the biological limits of tooth movement. Dental Press J Orthod 2010;15:192–205. DOI:
  3. Meeran NA. Iatrogenic possibilities of orthodontic treatment and modalities of prevention. J Orthod Sci 2013;2(3):73–86. DOI: 10.4103/2278-0203.119678.
  4. Wehrbein H, Bauer W, Diedrich P. Mandibular incisors, alveolar bone, and symphysis after orthodontic treatment. A retrospective study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;110(3):239–246. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(96)80006-0.
  5. Handelman CS. The anterior alveolus: Its importance in limiting orthodontic treatment and its influence on the occurrence of iatrogenic sequelae. Angle Orthod 1996;66(2):95–109. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1996)066<0095:TAAIII>2.3.CO;2.
  6. Mulie RM, Hoeve AT. The limitations of tooth movement within the symphysis, studied with laminagraphy and standardized occlusal films. J Clin Orthod 1976;10(2):882–893. PMID: 1074868.
  7. Agarwal SS, Jayan B, Chopra SS. An overview of malocclusion in India. J Dent Health Oral Disord Ther 2015;3(3):319–322. DOI: 10.15406/jdhodt.2015.03.00092.
  8. Lund H, Gröndahl K, Gröndahl HG. Cone–beam computed tomography evaluations of marginal alveolar bone before and after orthodontic treatment combined with premolar extractions. Eur J Oral Sci 2012;120(3):201–211. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2012.00964.x.
  9. Yared KFG, Zenobio EC, Pacheco W. Periodontal status of mandibular central incisors after orthodontic proclination in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130(1):6.e1–6.e8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.015.
  10. Nauert K, Berg R. Evaluation of labio–lingual bony support of lower incisors in orthodontically untreated adults with the help of computed tomography. J Orthofac Orthop 1999;60(5):321–334. DOI: 10.1007/BF01301245.
  11. Sarikaya S, Haydar B, Ciğer S, et al. Changes in alveolar bone thickness due to retraction of anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122(1):15–26. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2002.119804.
  12. Andrews WA, Abdulrazzaq WS, Hunt JE, et al. Incisor position and alveolar bone thickness: A comparative analysis of two untreated samples using lateral cephalograms. Angle Orthod 2022;92(1):3–10. DOI: 10.2319/022320-122.1.
  13. Hong SY, Shin JW, Hong C, et al. Alveolar bone remodeling during maxillary incisor intrusion and retraction. Prog Orthod 2019;20(1): 47–54. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-019-0300-2.
  14. Nayak KUS, Shetty A, Girija MP, et al. Changes in alveolar bone thickness due to retraction of anterior teeth during orthodontic treatment: A cephalometric and computed tomography comparative study. Ind J Dent Res 2013;24(6):736–741. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.127623.
  15. Zhang F, Lee SC, Lee JB, et al. Geometric analysis of alveolar bone around the incisors after anterior retraction following premolar extraction. Angle Orthod 2020;90(2):173–180. DOI: 10.2319/041419-266.1.
  16. Rojo–Sanchis J, Soto–Penaloza D, Penarrocha–Oltra D, et al. Facial alveolar bone thickness and modifying factors of anterior maxillary teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cone–beam computed tomography studies. BMC Oral Health 2021;21(1):143–159. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01495-2.
  17. Ghassemian M, Nowzari H, Lajolo C, et al. The thickness of facial alveolar bone overlying healthy maxillary anterior teeth. J Periodontol 2012;83:187–197. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2011.110172.
  18. Chu YM, Bergeron L, Chen YR. Bimaxillary protrusion: an overview of the surgical–orthodontic treatment. Semin Plast Surg 2009;23(1): 32–39. DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1110099.
  19. Gracco A, Lombardo L, Mancuso G, et al. Upper incisor position and bony support in untreated patients as seen on CBCT. Angle Orthod 2009;79(4):692–702. DOI: 10.2319/081908-437.1.
  20. Do TA, Shen YW, Fuh LJ, et al. Clinical assessment of the palatal alveolar bone thickness and its correlation with the buccolingual angulation of maxillary incisors for immediate implant placement. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21(5):1080–1086. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12835.
  21. Baysal A, Ucar FI, Buyuk SK, et al. Alveolar bone thickness and lower incisor position in skeletal Class I and Class II malocclusions assessed with cone–beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod 2013;43(3):134–140. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2013.43.3.134.
  22. Tian YL, Liu F, Sun HJ, et al. Alveolar bone thickness around maxillary central incisors of different inclination assessed with cone–beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod 2015;45(5):245–252. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2015.45.5.245.
  23. Solow B. The dentoalveolar compensatory mechanism: Background and clinical implications. Br J Orthod 1980;7(3):145–161. DOI: 10.1179/bjo.7.3.145.
  24. Worms FW, Isaacson RJ, Speidel TM. Surgical orthodontic treatment planning: Profile analysis and mandibular surgery. Angle Orthod 1976;46(1):1–25. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1976)046 <0001:SOTPPA>2.0.CO;2.
  25. Rakosi T. Treatment of class III malocclusions. In: Graber TM, Rakosi T, Petrovic A, editors. Dentofacial Orthopedic with Functional Appliances. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 1997, pp. 391–411.
  26. Ma J, Huang J, Jiang JH. Morphological analysis of the alveolar bone of the anterior teeth in severe high angle skeletal class II and class III malocclusions assessed with cone–beam computed tomography. PLoS One 2019;14(3):e0210461. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210461.
  27. Yamada C, Kitai N, Kakimoto N, et al. Spatial relationships between the mandibular central incisor and associated alveolar bone in adults with mandibular prognathism. Angle Orthod 2007;77(5):766–772. DOI: 10.2319/072906-309.
  28. Grunder U, Gracis S, Capelli M. Influence of 3-D bone-to-implant relationship on esthetics. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2005;25(2):113–119. PMID: 15839587.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.