Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 72
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 380-387

Fenestration and dehiscence in the alveolar bone of anterior maxillary and mandibular teeth in cone-beam computed tomography of an Iranian population


1 Department of Maxillofacial Radiology, Dental Sciences Research Center, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran
2 Department of Periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran
3 Private Clinical, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran

Date of Web Publication7-Sep-2020

Correspondence Address:
Prof. Zahra Dalili Kajan
Saravan Road, End of Professor Samii Blvd. Rasht
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.294327

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background: The presence of dentoalveolar lesions such as fenestration and dehiscence has great clinical importance. This study was designed to determine the incidence of bony fenestrations and dehiscences associated with the anterior teeth by using cone-beam computed tomography images.
Materials and Methods: A total of 216 images (1189 teeth) were included in this cross-sectional study. The presence of fenestration and dehiscence at the buccal and lingual/palatal surfaces and also their relative levels on the roots of the teeth were determined. McNemar's, Chi-square, and Cochran's Q tests were used for data analysis. A value of P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
Results: The incidence of fenestration and dehiscence was 17.6% and 3.9%, respectively with the maxillary fenestrations being more prevalent (P < 0.0001). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of dehiscences between the jaws (P = 0.824) and among the tooth types (P = 0.689). The lesions were more frequent at the buccal surfaces (80%–92.5%). About 85.9% of the fenestrations occurred in the apical root thirds, whereas dehiscences had the highest prevalence in the cervical thirds. Fenestration and dehiscence incidences were significantly higher in females (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference among the age groups regarding these lesions.
Conclusion: Fenestration and dehiscence were observed more on the buccal surfaces and also in the apical and cervical root thirds, respectively. Age had no significant influence on the occurrence of these lesions in contrast to the sex.

Keywords: Alveolar bone, cone-beam computed tomography, mandible, maxilla, periodontics


How to cite this article:
Kajan ZD, Seyed Monir SE, Khosravifard N, Jahri D. Fenestration and dehiscence in the alveolar bone of anterior maxillary and mandibular teeth in cone-beam computed tomography of an Iranian population. Dent Res J 2020;17:380-7

How to cite this URL:
Kajan ZD, Seyed Monir SE, Khosravifard N, Jahri D. Fenestration and dehiscence in the alveolar bone of anterior maxillary and mandibular teeth in cone-beam computed tomography of an Iranian population. Dent Res J [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 28];17:380-7. Available from: https://www.drjjournal.net/text.asp?2020/17/5/380/294327




  Introduction Top


The alveolar bone is part of the periodontal tissue, and its anatomy is different in different patients. It is affected by the location, angulation, and tilt of the teeth as well as by occlusal forces. The anatomy of the alveolar bone is of great clinical importance because of the presence of dentoalveolar lesions such as fenestration and dehiscence. Fenestration is the condition, in which the bony coverage of the root surface is lost, and the root surface is only covered by the periosteum and gingiva. In such lesions, marginal bone is intact. When this bone defect spreads toward the marginal bone, it is called dehiscence.[1]

Fenestration and dehiscence bone defects are observed more in the facial than lingual root surfaces and also more in anterior than in posterior teeth.[1]

Curved and protruding root form, labial tooth protrusion, occlusal trauma, bruxism, and tooth movement along with the thin cortical bone plate are some of the predisposing factors for these bone defects.[2]

Therefore, dentists should have adequate knowledge of the anatomy of normal bone to achieve satisfactory results, to improve esthetic outcomes and to prevent complications of periodontal, endodontic, and orthodontic treatments. It is recommended that dentists determine the alveolar bone morphology through imaging before treatment.[3]

The diagnosis of fenestration and dehiscence is not easy clinically because although clinical findings derived from the gingival probing and conventional radiographic modalities can provide the guidelines for evaluating the alveolar bone defects, not fenestrations.[4]

Two-dimensional modalities include bitewing; periapical and panoramic radiographs are used to help in periodontal examinations. These modalities have limitations such as overlapping of anatomical structures, difficulty in standardization and determination of the dimension, and the presence of bone defects.[5],[6]

Braun et al. showed that using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), the precise analysis of periodontal defects becomes possible due to the third dimension. Thus, bone defects could be detected significantly more accurate.[7]

CBCT is a novel method in dentistry with proven superiority in the maxillofacial area over computed tomography (CT) scan. CBCT exposes the patient to less radiation than does CT.[8] CBCT has suitable capability in assessing the alveolar bone because of its high resolution. In this technique, the evaluation of small defects of the alveolar bone and their locations is possible because of the lack of superimposition of adjacent structures.[8]

There are several studies[5],[7],[9],[10],[11],[12] and reviews,[13],[14],[15] on different aspects of using CBCT in the analysis of periodontal bone defects and soft-tissue structures. Mengel et al.[11] and Leung et al.[16] didin vitro studies on the accuracy and reliability of CBCT in the detection of periodontal bone defects.

Several studies have determined the frequency of bony defects such as fenestration and dehiscence in the alveolar processes on dry human skulls through autopsy in several countries.[17],[18] In addition, the major studies on human populations have compared the frequency of these lesions on different classes of facial skeletal deformities.[19],[20]

To the best of our knowledge, no epidemiological survey has been conducted on an Iranian population on alveolar bone defect. These epidemiological studies help to plan proper treatment strategies, particularly in orthodontic treatment. These findings could be helpful how to be applied orthodontic force on the teeth having this kind of alveolar bone defects.

With the possibility of using the CBCT imaging archive and considering the current lack of sufficient information about this population, this study was designed to assess the incidence of fenestration and dehiscence and the locations of these lesions on the root surfaces of maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth by CBCT images.


  Materials and Methods Top


In this cross-sectional study, all CBCT images of patients who had been referred to a Private Maxillofacial Radiology Center and School of Dentistry in Rasht during 2016 were reviewed. This study was confirmed by the Ethics Committee of Guilan University of Medical Sciences (IR.GUMS.REC.1396.48). After evaluating all available CBCT images, those of CBCT images of the patients with normal dentoalveolar structures of anterior maxillary and mandibular teeth are included in this study.

However, generalized bone loss secondary to periodontal disease or a systemic condition, positive history of trauma, orthodontic treatment, and the presence of apical lesion as well as root canal therapy on anterior maxillary or mandibular teeth were considered as exclusion criteria. Poor quality CBCT images were also excluded from this study.

CBCT images were obtained with a Vatech CBCT device (Gyeonggi-do, Korea) (voxel size: 0.2 mm, FOV: 8 cm × 8 cm for maxilla or mandible mode and 12 cm × 9 cm for maxilla and mandible mode) from the faculty of dentistry in Rasht, Iran, and with a New Tom VG (Verona, Italy) (voxel size: 0.2–0.24 mm, FOV: 10 cm × 10 cm for standard zoom mode and 22.5 cm × 22.5 cm for full zoom mode) from a private maxillofacial radiology clinic.

After the reconstruction of volumetric data, cross-sectional images with 1-mm thickness and distance in buccolingual or buccopalatal dimensions were provided. Two maxillofacial radiologists independently evaluated cross-sectional and axial images for the presence or absence of fenestration and dehiscence. [Figure 1] and [Figure 2] illustrate fenestration and dehiscence in cross-sectional views of anterior maxillary teeth. In addition, the locations and extension of the bony lesions were designated according to the cervical, middle, and apical third of buccal or lingual (palatal) surfaces.
Figure 1: Fenestration bone defect at the apical third of the right maxillary canine in cross-sectional view (a) and lingual aspect of mandibular central incisors in axial view (b) and in cross-sectional view of left mandibular central incisor (c).

Click here to view
Figure 2: Dehiscence bone defect at the cervical third of the right maxillary tooth in cross-sectional view (a) and at the level of middle third toward cervical portion of right mandibular central incisor (b).

Click here to view


Fenestration was considered as a local bone defect or as bone exposure of overlying alveolar bone on the root surface with the intact marginal bone. When the bone defect spread to the marginal bone, this was considered to be dehiscence. In equivocal cases, the reported results were based on the consensus agreement between the two observers. Two observers were maxillofacial radiologists having more than 10 years of experience on CBCT images. After 2 weeks, the observers reviewed the 20 images again to determine intraobserver reliability.

Statistical analysis

After data collection, the data were entered into SPSS, 22 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). The frequencies of fenestration and dehiscence were determined by a 95% confidence interval.

To compare the frequency of dehiscence and fenestration based on the involved jaw, the tooth type, and the location of the lesions along root surfaces, McNemar's test was used. The Chi-square test and Cochran's Q tests were used to compare the frequency of these lesions in the gender and age groups. A value of P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.


  Results Top


In this cross-sectional study, 216 image samples were reviewed to determine the presence of fenestration and dehiscence. A total of 67.6% of the images (146 cases) were from females and 32.4% (70 cases) from males. Most of the samples (72.2%) were from individuals between the ages of 30 and 60 years.

The frequency of fenestration in 216 CBCT images was 17.6% (13%–23.1%, with 95% confidence interval). Dehiscence was observed in 9.3% (5.9%–13.7%, 95% confidence interval) of cases. [Table 1] illustrates that there was a statistically significant difference between the maxilla and mandible (P = 0.0001) in the frequency of fenestration, but there was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.82) in the frequency of dehiscence between the jaws.
Table 1: Comparison of frequency of fenestration and dehiscence in the maxilla and mandible

Click here to view


The frequency of fenestration and dehiscence in the 1189 teeth was 5.55% and 2.52%, respectively. [Table 2] details the frequencies of these bone defects based on tooth number (type).
Table 2: Comparison of the frequency of fenestration and dehiscence based on tooth number in the maxilla and mandible

Click here to view


The frequency of fenestration and dehiscence in this study was much higher in females than in males, and these differences were statistically significant (P = 0.016 for fenestration and P = 0.032 for dehiscence). Meanwhile, the frequency of fenestration and dehiscence did not show any significant difference between age groups [Table 3].
Table 3: Comparison of the frequency of fenestration and dehiscence based on the variables of sex and age groups

Click here to view


In this study, 85.9% of fenestration lesions were detected in apical thirds, 12.6% in middle thirds, and 1.4% in cervical thirds. It should be noted that the number of cases of fenestration increased from 66 to 71 because the lesions can spread out to more than one level. Because dehiscence spreads from the alveolar bone crest, 100% of the lesions were found in the cervical third, 30% of cases spread up to the middle third, and only 6.6% of cases spread up to the apical third level [Table 4].
Table 4: Distribution of fenestration and dehiscence on different levels of root surface

Click here to view


A total of 92.5% of fenestration and 80% of dehiscence lesions were observed on the buccal aspect of root surfaces [Table 5].
Table 5: Distribution of fenestration and dehiscence on involved root surfaces

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


To evaluate the frequency of fenestration and dehiscence lesions, different methods are used, such as imaging and anthropology. In several studies, human dried skulls were used to evaluate fenestration and dehiscence lesions,[3],[17],[18],[21],[22] whereas other studies[19],[20],[23],[24],[25] used CBCT images for this evaluation.

Assessing fenestration and dehiscence lesions using human dried skulls not only reduces the risk of non-recognition of these lesions but also eliminates the ability to observe the presence of these lesions clinically. Therefore, the use of CBCT images could be helpful in making appropriate treatment plans because of their ability to detect periodontal lesions and alveolar bone defects.[24]

In Mengel et al.'s study, CBCT, in comparison with the histologic specimens, revealed a mean deviation of 0.19 ± 0.11 mm in the measurement of the alveolar bone defect.[11] In Leung et al. study, alveolar bone height can be measured to an accuracy of about 0.6 mm using a voxel size of 0.38 mm in CBCT. They presented that root fenestrations can be defined with greater accuracy than dehiscences.[16]

In the present study, the frequencies of fenestration and dehiscence in the studied sample were 17.6% and 9.3%, respectively, which is very low compared to the Nimigean et al.'s study, which found 89.58% for both lesions.[3] This difference can be explained by the Pan et al. theory.[24] In dry skulls, the structures of the tooth and alveolar bone are different; therefore, when they are exposed to the air and the soil (especially at labial levels), the alveolar bone is destroyed faster than the teeth, thus causing bone lesions.[24] In Nimigean et al.'s[3] study, they studied on dry skulls.

In our study, the prevalence of root fenestration based on the available anterior surface of the teeth was 5.5%, which is consistent with the results obtained from other studies.[3],[17],[18],[21],[22],[24]

The prevalence of dehiscence in the current study is 9.3% (2.52% of total teeth), which is much lower than what was reported by Yang et al.[25] (75% of participants, 8.8% of total teeth), Nimigean et al.[3](53.6% of participants, 4.25% of total teeth), and Rupprecht et al.[21] (40.4% of participants, 4.1% of total teeth). The significant difference in the prevalence of dehiscence in the present study is likely because we only evaluated the anterior teeth, whereas other studies evaluated all teeth.[3],[17],[18],[21],[22],[25]

On the other hand, differences in the prevalence of fenestration and dehiscence in various studies may be due to different measurement methods, racial variety, and how to interpret lesions in dried skulls or CBCT images.[24] Rupprecht et al.[21] also noted that different diagnostic criteria in different studies can influence the outcomes, and hence that the definition of dehiscence varies from an alveolar bone defect in the absence of a cortical bone plate to an exposed root surface. The degree of dehiscence bone defect varies from 1 mm to 4 mm from the alveolar bone crest; this can, therefore, affect the results.[24]

In the current study, a higher incidence of fenestration was observed in the maxilla than in the mandible (16.2% vs. 1.4%), followed by canine, lateral, and central teeth. Most previous studies[17],[19],[20],[21],[22],[24] reported similar results with a higher frequency of fenestration bone lesions in the maxilla than in the mandible.

Rupprecht et al.[21] and Nimigean et al.[3] reported the prevalence of fenestration based on the tooth number in the first molar, maxillary molar, mandibular molar, maxillary canines, mandibular canine, and lateral mandibular incisor. In Tal et al.'s study,[18] as in our study, the highest frequency of fenestration was observed in canine teeth. Pan et al.[24] reported that the prevalence of fenestration was higher in the maxillary first premolars, lateral incisors and canines, and mandibular molars. They believed that this difference in the prevalence of fenestration in teeth remains unknown in different populations.

While in the present study, the frequency of dehiscence in the maxilla and mandible was not significantly different, nearly all previous studies[18],[19],[20],[21],[22] reported a higher prevalence of dehiscence in the mandible, followed by the mandibular premolar and canine teeth.

In our study, the prevalence of bone defects was reported more on the buccal surface (92.5% of fenestration bone defect and 80% of dehiscence bone defect) than on the lingual or palatal surfaces. This finding is similar to the report of Rupprecht et al. (94.5%).[21] Nimigean et al.[3] and Tal[18] did not report any lesions at the lingual or palatal surfaces. Most previous studies reported the same results regarding the location of bone lesions on the buccal, palatal, and lingual surfaces.[19],[21],[22],[24],[25]

In this study, the highest frequency of fenestration was observed in the apical third (85.9%). In other studies,[3],[21],[22],[24] the frequency of fenestration was reported to range from 54.73%–92.57%. However, due to the nature of dehiscence lesions, 100% of the lesions were observed in the cervical area, while in 30% of cases, they extended up to the middle third and only in 6.6% of cases did they spread to the apical portion. The results of the present study were consistent with the Yang et al. study.[25]

In the present study, the prevalence of fenestration and dehiscence lesions was significantly higher in females than in males. There were no significant differences in the prevalence of bone defects between female and male groups in some studies,[18],[24] while a much higher incidence of these lesions was reported in females than in males in other studies.[21],[25] The reason for this difference is believed to be the thinness of the alveolar bone in females.

There was no significant difference among the age groups in terms of the frequency of fenestration and dehiscence. This result is consistent with Yang et al.'s study.[25] However, some researchers[3],[21],[24] reported that the prevalence of fenestration and dehiscence decreases with age. The logical reasoning for this concept is that aging increases the chance of periodontal disease, and hence, the deterioration of these bony defects is intensified, and the teeth are lost. Therefore, the prevalence of the bone defects of dehiscence and fenestration are lower in the remaining available teeth.[24]

In general, the position of teeth in the dental arch seems to be one of the most important determinants of alveolar bone thickness and contour.[3] After mucogingival flap surgery, the marginal bone naturally remodels to repair. If the alveolar bone is thin, sufficient bone healing does not occur after the surgery, and the risk of bone loss increases. Such conditions convert existing fenestration lesions to dehiscence and small dehiscence lesions to a widespread problem.[21],[25]

Kim and Kratchman noted that marginal bone defects have a significant effect on the prognosis of endodontic surgeries. If the thickness of the buccal bone is >3 mm, then desirable results will be obtained.[26] Spray et al. concluded that if the thickness of the alveolar bone is >2 mm, the long-term results of implant placement would be satisfactory.[27] Merheb et al. also reported that dehiscence affects implant stability. It is recommended that bone augmentation before implant surgery be performed in patients with thin alveolar bones.[28]

Furthermore, the alveolar bone must be examined before orthodontic treatment to detect the presence of fenestration and dehiscence in the bone. These bony defects are present on the alveolar bone coverage of the prominent and buccally-protruded roots. These teeth are more likely to exhibit fenestration and dehiscence. Thus, rapid orthodontic movements can aggravate alveolar bone lesions and spread bone loss. In such situations, gingival augmentation is recommended before beginning orthodontic treatment.[21]

One clinically important factor is that fenestration and dehiscence are not detectable by conventional radiographs. These lesions are usually detected by exposure of the alveolar bone during periodontal surgeries. The presence of fenestration and dehiscence lesions can interact with the process of wound healing.[3]

Further studies of the effects of fenestration and dehiscence on the extent and pattern of alveolar bone loss as well as on repair following surgical treatments are needed. It is also important to conduct more studies to determine the frequency of fenestration and dehiscence lesions on all tooth numbers in the Iranian population, and hence that high-risk areas will become more apparent during the planning for periodontal surgeries and orthodontic treatments.


  Conclusion Top


The prevalence of fenestration in this study was consistent with the results of previous studies. The prevalence of dehiscence in this study was lower than the results of previous studies. The frequency of fenestration was higher in the maxilla, especially on labial surfaces. The maxillary canines were the most common sites of fenestration. Fenestration was detected most often in the apical third. Dehiscence extension was observed more in the cervical 3rd, followed by the middle thirds. The prevalence of alveolar bone defects was higher in females than in males.

Acknowledgment

We appreciate Dr. Ehsan Kazemnejad for his help with the statistical analysis of the data. We would like to thank Dr Ali Moshajari, Department of orthodontics, Guilan University of Medical Sciences for his scientific suggestions in this research.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare that they have no conflicts of interest, real or perceived, financial or nonfinancial in this article.



 
  References Top

1.
Fiorellini JP, Kim DM, Uzel NG. Anatomy of periodontium. In: Newman MG, Takei H, Klokkevold PR, editors. Carranza's Clinical Periodontology. 11th ed. St. Louis, MO: Saunders Elsevier; 2015. p. 11, 31-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Linde J, Karring T, Araujo M. The anatomy of periodontal tissue. In: Linde J, Lang NP, Karring T, editors. Clinical Periodontology and Implant Dentistry. 5th ed. Mankasgaard: Oxford. Blackwell Company; 2008. p. 3.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Nimigean VR, Nimigean V, Bencze MA, Dimcevici-Poesina N, Cergan R, Moraru S. Alveolar bone dehiscences and fenestrations: An anatomical study and review. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2009;50:391-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Bagis N, Kolsuz ME, Kursun S, Orhan K. Comparison of intraoral radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the detection of periodontal defects: Anin vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2015;15:64.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Mol A, Balasundaram A.In vitro cone beam computed tomography imaging of periodontal bone. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008;37:319-24.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Misch KA, Yi ES, Sarment DP. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for periodontal defect measurements. J Periodontol 2006;77:1261-6.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Braun X, Ritter L, Jervøe-Storm PM, Frentzen M. Diagnostic accuracy of CBCT for periodontal lesions. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:1229-36.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Scarfe WC, Farman AG. Cone beam computed tomography. In: White SC, Pharoah MJ, editors. Oral Radiology Principles and Interpretation. 7th ed. St. Louis, MO: Saunders Elsevier; 2014. p. 199-200.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Vandenberghe B, Jacobs R, Yang J. Diagnostic validity (or acuity) of 2D CCD versus 3D CBCT-images for assessing periodontal breakdown. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;104:395-401.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
de Faria Vasconcelos K, Evangelista KM, Rodrigues CD, Estrela C, de Sousa TO, Silva MA. Detection of periodontal bone loss using cone beam CT and intraoral radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012;41:64-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Mengel R, Candir M, Shiratori K, Flores-de-Jacoby L. Digital volume tomography in the diagnosis of periodontal defects: Anin vitro study on native pig and human mandibles. J Periodontol 2005;76:665-73.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Noujeim M, Prihoda T, Langlais R, Nummikoski P. Evaluation of high-resolution cone beam computed tomography in the detection of simulated interradicular bone lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009;38:156-62.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Acar B, Kamburoǧlu K. Use of cone beam computed tomography in periodontology. World J Radiol 2014;6:139-47.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Benic GI, Elmasry M, Hämmerle CH. Novel digital imaging techniques to assess the outcome in oral rehabilitation with dental implants: A narrative review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26 Suppl 11:86-96.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Rakhewar PS, Muley A, Saraf K, Thorat M, Chacko L, Patil S, Birla A. Advanced diagnostic imaging in periodontal diseases: A review. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 2019;18:55-70.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Leung CC, Palomo L, Griffith R, Hans MG. Accuracy and reliability of cone-beam computed tomography for measuring alveolar bone height and detecting bony dehiscences and fenestrations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:S109-19.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Urbani G, Lombardo G, Filippini P, Nocini FP. Dehiscence and fenestration: Study of distribution and incidence in a homogeneous population model. Stomatol Mediterr 1991;11:113-8.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Tal H. Alveolar dehiscences and fenestrae in dried South African Negro mandibles. Am J Phys Anthropol 1983;61:173-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Yagci A, Veli I, Uysal T, Ucar FI, Ozer T, Enhos S. Dehiscence and fenestration in skeletal Class I, II, and III malocclusions assessed with cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 2012;82:67-74.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Evangelista K, Vasconcelos Kde F, Bumann A, Hirsch E, Nitka M, Silva MA. Dehiscence and fenestration in patients with Class I and Class II Division 1 malocclusion assessed with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:133.e1-7.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Rupprecht RD, Horning GM, Nicoll BK, Cohen ME. Prevalence of dehiscences and fenestrations in modern American skulls. J Periodontol 2001;72:722-9.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Edel A. Alveolar bone fenestrations and dehiscences in dry Bedouin jaws. J Clin Periodontol 1981;8:491-9.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Yoshioka T, Kikuchi I, Adorno CG, Suda H. Periapical bone defects of root filled teeth with persistent lesions evaluated by cone-beam computed tomography. Int Endod J 2011;44:245-52.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Pan HY, Yang H, Zhang R, Yang YM, Wang H, Hu T, et al. Use of cone-beam computed tomography to evaluate the prevalence of root fenestration in a Chinese subpopulation. Int Endod J 2014;47:10-9.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Yang Y, Yang H, Pan H, Xu J, Hu T. Evaluation and new classification of alveolar bone dehiscences using cone-beam computed tomography in vivo. Int J Morphol 2015;33:361-8.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Kim S, Kratchman S. Modern endodontic surgery concepts and practice: A review. J Endod 2006;32:601-23.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Spray JR, Black CG, Morris HF, Ochi S. The influence of bone thickness on facial marginal bone response: Stage 1 placement through stage 2 uncovering. Ann Periodontol 2000;5:119-28.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Merheb J, Coucke W, Jacobs R, Naert I, Quirynen M. Influence of bony defects on implant stability. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:919-23.  Back to cited text no. 28
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]



 

Top
 
 
Search
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed106    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded29    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal