Skip to main content
West China Journal of Stomatology logoLink to West China Journal of Stomatology
. 2019 Aug;37(4):412–416. [Article in Chinese] doi: 10.7518/hxkq.2019.04.014

采用锥形束CT测量健康上前牙唇侧骨板形态及牙长轴倾角的变化

Cone-beam computed tomography digital for measuring the inclination angle to the long axis of healthy maxillary anterior teeth and morphologically characterizing their labial bone plates

Yang Han 1,, Xiaoguang Li 1, Jie Zhu 1, Jingwen Li 1, Suning Hu 1, Cong Li 1, Jing Zhao 1, Yuhong Liang 1,2
Editor: 吴 爱华
PMCID: PMC7030264  PMID: 31512836

Abstract

Objective

We aim to determine the thickness of the labial plate, the distance between the cement-enamel junction (CEJ) and alveolar crest, and the inclination angle of the long axis of healthy maxillary anterior teeth by using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Methods

A total of 345 CBCT volumes obtained by Newtom VGI® CBCT were analyzed by using the NNT software. The digital measurements of the labial bone plate thickness at level 4 mm below the CEJ, the midpoint of tooth root and the radiological tooth apex, the distance between the CEJ and alveolar crest, and the angle between the long axis of the teeth and the long axis of alveolar process were obtained from the mid-sagittal planes of maxillary incisors and canines. Plate thickness 4 mm below the CEJ was measured, and values below ≥1 mm were recorded.

Results

In the central incisor, 1) the angle between the long axis of the teeth and alveolar bone was 15.2°±6.2°, the distance between the CEJ and alveolar crest was (1.5±1.0) mm, labial bone plate thickness at 4 mm below the CEJ was (0.8±0.4) mm, the midpoint of tooth root was (0.6±0.4) mm, and the radiological tooth apex was (1.3±0.7) mm; in the lateral incisor, 16.2°±8.8°, (1.6±1.0) mm, (0.7±0.5) mm, (0.4±0.6) mm, and (1.1±0.7) mm, respectively; and in the canine, 19.0°±6.2°, (1.8±1.0) mm, (0.9±0.6) mm, (0.4±0.6) mm, and (1.2±0.7) mm, respectively. 2) The frequencies of plate thickness ≥1 mm were 28.3%, 25.8%, and 42.7% in the central incisor, lateral incisor, and canine, respectively. 3) The distance between the CEJ and alveolar crest was positively correlated with age. The correlation coefficients was 0.42 (P<0.01) in the central incisor, 0.50 (P<0.01) in the lateral incisor, and 0.62 (P<0.01) in the canine.

Conclusion

The thickness of labial bone plate is thin, the distance from CEJ to alveolar crest increases with age, and the long axis of the teeth is more inclined than the long axis of alveolar process. Knowledge of these special morphological characteristics can improve the safety and result for many dental procedures.

Keywords: labial bone plate, long axis of tooth, cone-beam computed tomography, digital measurement


上前牙对于维护面部美观和口腔发音功能至关重要。在涉及上前牙的正畸、牙周、牙槽外科和种植治疗时,其唇侧骨板的形态和牙长轴颊舌向倾角对于选择治疗计划和预后判断有重要意义。目前研究[1][3]认为,上前牙唇侧骨板厚度、釉牙骨质界(cemento-enamel junction,CEJ)到牙槽骨骨嵴顶距离和牙长轴与牙槽突长轴唇舌向夹角是描述前牙唇侧骨板形态特征和牙长轴倾角较为理想的参数,但相关研究存在样本例数较少,测量标准不统一等不足。近年来随着锥形束CT(cone-beam computer tomography,CBCT)图像数字化测量技术的快速发展,上述参数测量的准确性和可重复性显著提高,为进一步研究提供了便利。本研究的主要目的是采用CBCT图像数字化测量并分析健康上前牙唇侧骨板厚度、CEJ到牙槽骨骨嵴顶距离及牙长轴与牙槽突长轴的唇舌向夹角,并探讨可能的影响因素。

1. 材料和方法

1.1. 样本选择

选择2016.1.1—2017.12.31北京大学国际医院拍摄的就诊患者的颌面部CBCT图像,要求图像符合以下标准:1)图像视野完全包含13—23牙体及周围骨组织,解剖结构清晰可辨;2)13—23牙体形态大致正常,无影响观测的大面积充填体或全冠修复体且无明显错Inline graphic畸形;3)13—23牙及对应颌骨区域无占位性病变,排除外伤、正畸和牙周手术治疗史,结合当次临床检查排除附着丧失;4)患者年满18周岁,无影响骨代谢的疾病或药物服用史。

所有影像资料均由Newtom VGI®(Quantitative Radiology,Verona公司,意大利)CBCT机拍摄,拍摄条件110 kV,体素0.15 mm3,曝光时间、毫安数由Newtom拍摄程序自动选定,视野大小由检查目的决定。所有患者CBCT拍摄的必要性均有临床诊断支持,没有单独为本研究目的而拍摄的患者。本研究由北京大学国际医院生物医学伦理委员会伦理审查通过(审批号:2016-031)。

1.2. 确定测量参数

1.2.1. 确定测量平面

选择上颌前牙牙体正中矢状面作为测量平面,即在13—23牙CEJ水平做垂直于牙长轴的断面,在此层面上选择颊舌向牙体轮廓最凸点A、B,通过AB连线平行于牙长轴的矢状断面即为牙体正中矢状平面,见图1

图 1. 上颌前牙正中矢状面的确定.

图 1

Fig 1 Determining the mid-sagittal plane of maxillary anterior teeth

1.2.2. 定义测量参数

参考即刻种植标准和既往文献[3][5],在测量平面内选择CEJ水平下4 mm,影像学根尖及CEJ水平与影像学根尖二者中点水平做平行于颊舌CEJ连线L1的假想平行线L2、L4和L3,平行线在牙体表面和唇侧骨边缘之间的长度l1,l3和l2即对应水平牙齿唇侧骨板厚度,其中l1按厚度是否大于等于1 mm分为两组;过L2、L3和L4介于颊舌侧牙槽骨边缘之间的线段中点的拟合直线视为牙槽突长轴L5,牙长轴颊舌向倾角即为牙长轴L6与L5夹角∠AOB。L6在冠方较L5偏向舌侧形成角度记为正值,否则为负值;过骨嵴顶水平做L1平行线L7,二者间距l4即为CEJ到骨嵴顶距离,见图2

图 2. 牙长轴倾角,CEJ到骨嵴顶距离,CEJ下4 mm、根中点和影像学根尖水平唇侧骨板厚度的测量.

图 2

Fig 2 Measurements of the inclination angle of long axis of teeth, the distance from CEJ to alveolar crest, labial bone plate thickness at level 4 mm below the CEJ, the midpoint of teeth root and the radiological teeth apex

左:实测图;右:示意图。

1.3. 数据收集和统计方法

所有数据由同一中级职称的口腔颌面影像专业医师在DOME E3医用灰阶显示器(分辨率2 048×1 536,放大率150%)上,采用Newtom自带NNT软件进行数字化线性和角度测量,所有数据隔天测量3次取平均值,保留1位小数。临床数据收集完成后3个月,采用简单随机法抽取20%(69例)患者资料重新测量,采用组内相关系数(intraclass correlation coefficient,ICC)评价测量可重复性。两时点测量ICC=0.91(P=0.00),提示测量可重复性较好。

使用SPSS 22.0采用t检验、相关分析等方式进行数据处理,检验水准为双侧α=0.05。

2. 结果

2.1. 研究样本的一般情况

本研究最终纳入样本345例,男性105例,占30.4%,女性240例,占69.6%,均为中国籍汉族人,年龄18~65岁,平均年龄(36.7±11.6)岁,男女间年龄差异无统计学意义(t=-0.84,P=0.40)。将受试者按照年龄划分为青年组(18岁≤年龄<35岁,n=190),中年组(35岁≤年龄<50岁,n=105)和老年组(年龄≥50岁,n=50),各年龄组内性别差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

2.2. 上前牙唇侧牙槽骨特征和牙长轴倾角

双侧同名牙长轴倾角与各水平骨板厚度差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),因此双侧同名牙数据可合并计算。中切牙、侧切牙和尖牙的牙长轴倾角、各水平唇侧骨板厚度见表1。由表1可见,牙长轴倾角均为正值,提示牙长轴较牙槽突长轴舌倾,由远中向近中牙长轴倾角逐渐变小,侧切牙唇侧骨板厚度较中切牙、尖牙薄;但是各牙位倾角和唇侧各水平骨板厚度等参数在不同性别、年龄组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

表 1. 上前牙牙长轴倾角和各水平骨板厚度情况.

Tab 1 The inclination angle of long axis of teeth and labial bone plate thickness at different levels of maxillary anterior teeth

测量项目 中切牙(n=660) 侧切牙(n=667) 尖牙(n=668)
∠AOB/° 15.2±6.2 16.2±8.8 19.0±6.2
l1/mm 0.8±0.4 0.7±0.5 0.9±0.6
l2/mm 0.6±0.4 0.4±0.6 0.4±0.6
l3/mm 1.3±0.7 1.1±0.7 1.2±0.7

注:∠AOB:牙长轴颊舌向倾角;l1:CEJ下4 mm水平唇侧骨板厚度;l2:根中点水平唇侧骨板厚度;l3:影像学根尖水平唇侧骨板厚度。

CEJ下4 mm水平骨板厚度大于等于1 mm者,中切牙占28.3%(187/660),侧切牙占25.8%(172/667),尖牙占42.7%(285/668)。

2.3. CEJ到骨嵴顶距离及其与年龄的相关性分析

不同年龄组间中切牙、侧切牙、尖牙CEJ到骨嵴顶距离l4表2,各组间差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01),但同组不同性别间差异不明显(P>0.05)。

表 2. 不同年龄组中切牙、侧切牙和尖牙CEJ到骨嵴顶距离.

Tab 2 The distance from CEJ to alveolar crest of maxillary anterior teeth in different age groups

牙位 组别
合计 P
青年组 中年组 老年组
中切牙 1.1±0.9 1.6±0.7 2.6±0.8 1.5±1.0 0.00
侧切牙 1.3±0.9 1.8±0.8 2.7±0.6 1.6±1.0 0.00
尖牙 1.4±1.0 1.9±0.9 2.8±0.9 1.8±1.0 0.00

mm

CEJ到骨嵴顶距离与年龄的相关性分析见表3:中切牙、侧切牙、尖牙CEJ到骨嵴顶距离与年龄均有高度相关性(P<0.01)。

表 3. CEJ到骨嵴顶距离与年龄相关性分析.

Tab 3 The correlation between the distance from CEJ to alveolar crest and age

牙位 相关系数r P
中切牙 0.42 0.00
侧切牙 0.50 0.00
尖牙 0.62 0.00

3. 讨论

CBCT因辐射量小,获得信息量丰富而广泛应用于临床,其图像数字化测量的准确性和可重复性已被广泛认可[6]。CBCT测量误差与以下几种因素有关[7][8]。1)CBCT拍摄体素大小。体素尺寸越小,测量精度越高。2)观测媒介分辨率和图像放大率。在图像放大率一定的情况下,显示屏分辨率越高,测量精度越准确;3)测量人员的人为误差。本研究在满足受试者辐射保护前提下,选择较小的体素尺寸。研究[9]发现,体素大小为0.15 mm3条件下,CBCT测量误差为0.1~0.2 mm之间,可以满足临床要求。本研究同时采用专业化诊断级屏幕观测,多次测量取平均值和组内相关性验证以保证测量可重复性等方式,最大限度减小测量的系统误差。

本研究结果显示,受试者双侧同名牙牙长轴倾角、唇侧骨板形态特征基本一致,这与临床直观印象相符,提示同名牙能够为治疗计划、预后的判断提供一定的参考意义。上前牙唇侧CEJ下4 mm处骨板厚度均值小于1 mm,且尖牙、侧切牙、中切牙颊侧骨板厚度不足1 mm者占比分别为57.3%、74.2%、71.7%。与国外相关研究[2][3],[10]相比,本研究受试者唇侧骨板厚度明显偏薄。究其原因可能是因为测量人群人种不同。有研究[11]认为,汉族人颌骨发育较其他人种不发达。其次,可能与不同研究选用的CBCT设备不同有关。基于专利等原因,不同CBCT设备厂家倾向于使用不同的拍摄条件和成像算法,以往研究[6],[12][13]证实,针对同一标准模型不同型号CBCT图像准确度和可重复性均有差异。本研究采用较新型号的CBCT设备,拍摄条件和算法的改进提升了设备的空间分辨率和密度分辨率,减少伪影和真实骨壁边缘的误判从而可能使测量结果更接近真实。本研究结果提示,在牙周手术、即刻种植和正畸治疗方面,汉族人群面对的治疗风险更大,应该引起医师的重视。

CEJ到骨嵴顶距离也是上前牙唇侧牙槽骨形态的重要特征。一般认为这一均值约为2 mm[3],[10],本研究中各牙位CEJ到骨嵴顶间距离均值多位于1.5~1.8 mm之间,但变异较大。进一步分析发现,CEJ到骨嵴顶距离与年龄高度相关,这一现象在多个动物和临床研究中得到证实[14][15],其原因可能与牙齿的被动萌出有关[16][17]。随着牙齿磨耗增加,根部牙骨质增生,牙齿向冠方伸长,CEJ相对冠向移位,同时牙龈被动退缩,由于生物学宽度恒定,牙槽骨也随之下降,因此随着年龄的增长CEJ与骨嵴顶距离逐渐增大。

本研究选择CEJ下4 mm水平而非骨嵴顶处进行骨板厚度测量,是因为健康上前牙唇侧骨嵴顶向冠方移行变薄,个别牙甚至呈现刃状边缘,与周围组织边界难以分辨,测量误差大。Leung等[9]认为,CBCT图像牙槽嵴顶判断与真实值普遍存在(0.6±0.8) mm误差。由于邻牙CEJ下3~4 mm也是常用的种植体定位平面,因此选择这一水平骨板测量更有临床意义。本研究结果显示,尽管骨嵴顶高度随年龄变化明显,但CEJ下4 mm处骨板厚度却与年龄、性别无明显关联,提示此区域骨板厚度相对稳定,治疗的长期预后有保证。Huynh-Ba等[18]在即刻种植患者术中测量相同水平唇侧骨板厚度所得结果与本研究结果接近,也说明使用CBCT评估上前牙唇侧骨板厚度的准确性和可重复性是有保障的。

总之,本研究采用CBCT数字化测量技术评估健康上前牙唇侧骨板形态和牙长轴倾角,为临床医生针对性制定治疗计划和预估治疗风险提供了依据;但是本研究选择样本是属于个别正常Inline graphic的牙周健康人群,其结论对于错Inline graphic畸形、牙周病患者的推广须谨慎进行,仍有必要进一步扩大样本量进行研究。

References

  • 1.Srebrzyńska-Witek A, Koszowski R, Różyło-Kalinowska I. Relationship between anterior mandibular bone thickness and the angulation of incisors and canines: a CBCT study[J] Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(3):1567–1578. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2255-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ghassemian M, Nowzari H, Lajolo C, et al. The thickness of facial alveolar bone overlying healthy maxillary anterior teeth[J] J Periodontol. 2012;83(2):187–197. doi: 10.1902/jop.2011.110172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Amid R, Mirakhori M, Safi Y, et al. Assessment of gingival biotype and facial hard/soft tissue dimensions in the maxillary anterior teeth region using cone beam computed tomography[J] Arch Oral Biol. 2017;79:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2017.02.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Braut V, Bornstein MM, Belser U, et al. Thickness of the anterior maxillary facial bone wall-a retrospective radiographic study using cone beam computed tomography[J] Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2011;31(2):125–131. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kamperos G, Zambara I, Petsinis V, et al. The impact of buccal bone defects and immediate placement on the esthetic outcome of maxillary anterior single-tooth implants[J] J Oral Implantol. 2016;42(4):337–341. doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Van Dessel J, Nicolielo LF, Huang Y, et al. Accuracy and reliability of different cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) devices for structural analysis of alveolar bone in comparison with multislice CT and micro-CT[J] Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10(1):95–105. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kobayashi K, Shimoda S, Nakagawa Y, et al. Accuracy in measurement of distance using limited cone-beam computerized tomography[J] Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19(2):228–231. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Timock AM, Cook V, McDonald T, et al. Accuracy and reliability of buccal bone height and thickness measurements from cone-beam computed tomography imaging[J] Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140(5):734–744. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Leung CC, Palomo L, Griffith R, et al. Accuracy and reliability of cone-beam computed tomography for measuring alveolar bone height and detecting bony dehiscences and fenestrations[J] Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(4 Suppl):S109–S119. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.07.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.AlTarawneh S, AlHadidi A, Hamdan AA, et al. Assessment of bone dimensions in the anterior maxilla: a cone beam computed tomography study[J] J Prosthodont. 2018;27(4):321–328. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12675. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.刘 洁, 亚尔肯 阿吉, 买布拜木 买买提依明, et al. 维吾尔族和汉族成人上颌前牙美学区解剖形态的CBCT研究[J] 临床口腔医学杂志. 2018;34(2):92–95. [Google Scholar]; Liu J, Yaerken AJ, Maibubaimu M, et al. Anatomical morphology of maxillary anterior teeth for Uygur and Han adults by using cone beam computed tomography[J] J Clin Stomatol. 2018;34(2):92–95. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Van Dessel J, Nicolielo LF, Huang Y, et al. Quantification of bone quality using different cone beam computed tomography devices: accuracy assessment for edentulous human mandibles[J] Eur J Oral Implantol. 2016;9(4):411–424. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chen H, van Eijnatten M, Wolff J, et al. Reliability and accuracy of three imaging software packages used for 3D analysis of the upper airway on cone beam computed tomography images[J] Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017;46(6):20170043. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20170043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Vizzotto MB, Rösing CK, de Araujo FB, et al. Radiographic evaluation of alveolar bone height in the primary dentition: a retrospective follow-up study[J] Pediatr Dent. 2011;33(4):312–315. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Sterrett JD. Clinical and structural characteristics of periodontal tissues in young and old dogs[J] J Clin Periodontol. 1991;18(8):616–623. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1991.tb00099.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mele M, Felice P, Sharma P, et al. Esthetic treatment of altered passive eruption[J] Periodontol 2000. 2018;77(1):65–83. doi: 10.1111/prd.12206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Batista EL, Jr, Moreira CC, Batista FC, et al. Altered passive eruption diagnosis and treatment: a cone beam computed tomography-based reappraisal of the condition[J] J Clin Periodontol. 2012;39(11):1089–1096. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2012.01940.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Huynh-Ba G, Pjetursson BE, Sanz M, et al. Analysis of the socket bone wall dimensions in the upper maxilla in relation to immediate implant placement[J] Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(1):37–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01870.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from West China Journal of Stomatology are provided here courtesy of Editorial Department of West China Journal of Stomatology

RESOURCES