Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)-Based Assessment of the Alveolar Bone Anatomy of the Maxillary and Mandibular Molars: Implication for Immediate Implant Placement

• Published in: Curēus (Palo Alto, CA) Vol. 15; no. 7; p. e41608
• Main Authors: Aldahlawi, Salwa, Nourah, Dalia M, Azab, Raneem Y, Binyaseen, Jawan A, Alsehli, Ethar A, Zamzami, Halema F, Bukhari, Omair M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Cureus Inc 09-07-2023; Cureus
• Subjects: Anatomy; Anatomy & physiology; Dental implants; Dentistry; Jaw; Morphology; Radiology; Teeth; Tomography; mandibular molars; maxillary sinus; maxillary molars; cone beam computed tomography; immediate implant; inferior alveolar nerve; alveolar bone anatomy
• ISSN: 2168-8184; 2168-8184
• DOI: 10.7759/cureus.41608

Purpose This study aims to examine specific aspects of socket morphology, including buccal and palatal/lingual bone width, interradicular bone (IRB) width, and assessments of root apices and furcation proximity to the vital structures of the maxillary and mandibular first and second molars using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods The study involved the analysis of 400 maxillary and mandibular first and second molars. Various measurements were taken to assess socket morphology, including mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) width, buccal and lingual bone thickness at 2 mm apical to the alveolar crest, IRB width at 2 mm from the furcation, and the distance between the root apices and furcation to vital structures, such as the floor of the maxillary sinus (FMS) and inferior alveolar nerve (IAN). Results The mesiobuccal (MB) root of the second molar commonly intruded into the sinus, followed by the palatal root of the maxillary first molar. The mean FMS-F distance was 7.17 + 3.98 mm, and it was 7.2 + 2.72 mm for maxillary first and second molars, respectively. The mean IRB width was 2.77 + 0.96 and 2.29 + 0.74 mm for the first and second molars. The mandibular second molar had the shortest distance to the IAN in comparison to the first molar. For maxillary teeth, 7% of the first and 4% of the second molars presented alveolar anatomy adequate for immediate implant placement, compared to 84% and 50% of mandibular first and second molars. Conclusion Understanding the local alveolar bone anatomy of molars and its relationship to vital structures is crucial for the effective planning of implant treatments.