{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02103049421661409, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0057833859095688745, 'mean_word_length': 4.909937888198757, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Cone-beam Computed Tomography Evaluation of Mandibular Anterior Alveolar Bone Dimensions in Class I and Class II Skeletal Patterns

Aim and objective: The study aims to compare the alveolar bone thickness in the lower incisors area in skeletal class I average growing adults with two different growth patterns of class II adults using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging technique. Materials and methods: The CBCT images of 20 class II and 10 class I average growth pattern patients were examined. Class II patients were subdivided into high- and low-angle groups of 10 patients each. The alveolar bone thickness of mandibular incisors in the buccal and lingual region was measured at the level of the alveolar crest and 3, 6, and 9 mm from the alveolar crest. Results: Buccal and lingual alveolar bone thickness in class II high- and low-angle patients was not significantly different at all levels except at 3 and 9 mm apical levels where lingual bone shows more thickness than buccal. Class II high-angle group showed thinner alveolar bone than low-angle and class I average groups, in most areas. Conclusion: Skeletal class II subjects with hyperdivergent growth patterns showed thinner mandibular alveolar bone in most areas compared with average/low-angle subjects. In class I average growing patients, the lingual alveolar bone is thicker in all sites. In class II high-angle patients, most sites exhibit thicker lingual bone thickness. In class II low-angle cases, all sites have a greater buccal bone thickness. Clinical significance: The anatomic limit set by the alveolar cortical bone should be considered during treatment planning during the sagittal correction, retraction of teeth, and miniscrew insertion. It is important to consider these boundaries as a limit to reposition teeth. Considering the anatomy of the alveolus is one of the keys to minimize unfavorable sequelae.