Advertisement

Distances of root apices to adjacent anatomical structures in the anterior maxilla: an analysis using cone beam computed tomography

  • Julien Ducommun
  • Michael M. Bornstein
  • May Chun Mei Wong
  • Thomas von Arx
Original Article
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

The aim was to assess the anatomical relationship of anterior maxillary teeth to the nasal floor in patients referred for apical surgery.

Materials and methods

Cone beam computed tomographic images (CBCT) of 83 patients were analysed retrospectively to quantify the distances between the root apices of maxillary anterior teeth (canine to canine) to the nasal floor or maxillary sinus (whichever was closer). Secondary outcome variables were the distances of the periapical lesion to the nasal floor, distances of the apices to the labial and palatal bone plates as well as to the neighbouring teeth.

Results

A total of 93 teeth (39 central, 35 lateral incisors and 19 canines) were analysed. The mean shortest distances of the apices to the nasal floor (or maxillary sinus) were 8.54 mm for central incisors, 9.49 mm for lateral incisors and 5.39 mm for the canines. The canines exhibited a significantly shorter distance to the nasal floor/maxillary sinus. In the presence of an osteolysis, the distance to the nasal floor was significantly shorter compared to the teeth without lesions. The lateral and central incisors showed significant proximity to each other at the level of the future surgical resection (3 mm from the apex).

Conclusions

A close proximity between apices and adjacent anatomical structures such as nasal floor, maxillary sinus or adjacent roots could be shown in some cases.

Clinical relevance

CBCT could be a valuable adjunctive imaging tool prior to apical surgery in the anterior maxilla to assess the risk for and decrease the incidence of damage to neighbouring anatomical structures such as the nasal floor, maxillary sinus or adjacent roots.

Keywords

Cone beam computed tomography Apical surgery Nasal floor Maxillary sinus 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Ines Badertscher, Medical Illustrator, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland, for the schematic illustrations.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study protocol has been approved by the standing ethics committee of the State of Bern (approval number KEK-BE 361/15). The study has therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Taschieri S, Weinstein T, Rosano G, del Fabbro M (2012) Morphological features of the maxillary incisors roots and relationship with neighbouring anatomical structures: possible implications in endodontic surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41:616–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jacobs R, Lambrichts I, Liang X, Martens W, Mraiwa N, Adriaensens P, Gelan J (2007) Neurovascularization of the anterior jaw bones revisited using high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 103:683–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mraiwa N, Jacobs R, Van Cleynenbreugel J et al (2004) The nasopalatine canal revisited using 2D and 3D CT imaging. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33:396–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Creasy JE, Mines P, Sweet M (2009) Surgical trends among endodontists: the results of a web-based survey. J Endod 35:30–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bornstein MM, Balsiger R, Sendi P, von Arx T (2011) Morphology of the nasopalatine canal and dental implant surgery: a radiographic analysis of 100 consecutive patients using limited cone-beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 22:295–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chatriyanuyoke P, Lu CI, Suzuki Y, Lozada JL, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JYK, Goodacre CJ (2012) Nasopalatine canal position relative to the maxillary central incisors: a cone beam computed tomography assessment. J Oral Implantol 38:713–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fernández-Alonso A, Suárez-Quintanilla JA, Muinelo-Lorenzo J, Bornstein MM, Blanco-Carrión A, Suárez-Cunqueiro MM (2014) Three-dimensional study of nasopalatine canal morphology: a descriptive retrospective analysis using cone-beam computed tomography. Surg Radiol Anat 36:895–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Suter VG, Jacobs R, Brücker MR et al (2016) Evaluation of a possible association between a history of dentoalveolar injury and the shape and size of the nasopalatine canal. Clin Oral Investig 20:553–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Temmerman A, Hertelé S, Teughels W, Dekeyser C, Jacobs R, Quirynen M (2011) Are panoramic images reliable in planning sinus augmentation procedures? Clin Oral Implants Res 22:189–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Oliveira-Santos C, Rubira-Bullen IR, Monteiro SA et al (2013) Neurovascular anatomical variations in the anterior palate observed on CBCT images. Clin Oral Implants Res 24:1044–1048PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    von Arx T, Lozanoff S, Sendi P, Bornstein MM (2013) Assessment of bone channels other than the nasopalatine canal in the anterior maxilla using limited cone beam computed tomography. Surg Radiol Anat 35:783–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nicholas CL, Franciscus RG (2014) The ontogeny of nasal floor shape variation in extant humans. Am J Phys Anthropol 155:369–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    von Arx (2011) Apical surgery: a review of current techniques and outcome. Saudi Dent J 23:9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Howe RB (2009) First molar radicular bone near the maxillary sinus: a comparison of CBCT analysis and gross anatomic dissection for small bony measurement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 108:264–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kang SH, Kim BS, Kim Y (2015) Proximity of posterior teeth to the maxillary sinus and buccal bone thickness: a biometric assessment using cone-beam computed tomography. J Endod 41:1839–1846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kilic C, Kamburoglu K, Yuksel SP, Ozen T (2010) An assessment of the relationship between the maxillary sinus floor and the maxillary posterior teeth root tips using dental cone-beam computerized tomography. Eur J Dent 4:462–467PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nunes CA, Guedes OA, Alencar AH et al (2016) Evaluation of periapical lesions and their association with maxillary sinus abnormalities on cone-beam computed tomographic images. J Endod 42:42–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pagin O, Centurion BS, Rubira-Bullen IR et al (2013) Maxillary sinus and posterior teeth: accessing close relationship by cone-beam computed tomographic scanning in a Brazilian population. J Endod 39:748–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shokri A, Lari S, Yousef F et al (2014) Assessment of the relationship between the maxillary sinus floor and maxillary posterior teeth roots using cone beam computed tomography. J Contemp Dent Pract 15:618–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tian XM, Qian L, Xin XZ, Wei B, Gong Y (2016) An analysis of the proximity of maxillary posterior teeth to the maxillary sinus using cone-beam computed tomography. J Endod 42:371–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    von Arx T, Fodich I, Bornstein MM (2014) Proximity of premolar roots to maxillary sinus: a radiographic survey using cone-beam computed tomography. J Endod 40:1541–1548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bornstein MM, Horner K, Jacobs R (2017) Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: current concepts, indications and limitations for clinical practice and research. Periodontol 2000 73:51–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cotton TP, Geisler TM, Holden DT et al (2007) Endodontic applications of cone-beam volumetric tomography. J Endod 33:1121–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Silva MA, Wolf U, Heinicke F et al (2008) Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 133:640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Patel S, Dawood A, Ford TP, Whaites E (2007) The potential applications of cone beam computed tomography in the management of endodontic problems. Int Endod J 40:818–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cicchetti DV (1994) Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 6:284–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kopecka D, Simunek A, Brazda T, Rota M, Slezak R, Capek L (2012) Relationship between subsinus bone height and bone volume requirements for dental implants: a human radiographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27:48–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim HJ, Yoon HR, Kim KD, Kang MK, Kwak HH, Park HD, Han SH, Park CS (2003) Personal-computer-based three-dimensional reconstruction and simulation of maxillary sinus. Surg Radiol Anat 24:393–399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tsesis I, Rosen E (2014) Periapical osteotomy and curettage. In: Tsesis I (ed) Complications in endodontic surgery. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julien Ducommun
    • 1
  • Michael M. Bornstein
    • 2
  • May Chun Mei Wong
    • 3
  • Thomas von Arx
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Oral Surgery and Stomatology, School of Dental MedicineUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Applied Oral Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Prince Philip Dental HospitalThe University of Hong KongHong KongChina
  3. 3.Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Prince Philip Dental HospitalThe University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations