Anatomical Study of the Maxillary Tuberosity Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography

Overview

Journal Oral Radiol

Specialty Radiology

Date 2018 Nov 29

PMID 30484092

Citations 7

Authors

Ester Manzanera

Paula Llorca

David Manzanera

Veronica Garcia-Sanz

Vicente Sada

Vanessa Paredes-Gallardo

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To examine the dimensions (width, length, and height) of the maxillary tuberosity (MT) and their correlations with age and sex, and to identify different anatomical types for adequate positioning of miniscrews in this area.

Methods: The study enrolled 39 patients attending the University of Valencia. The patients comprised 21 males and 18 females with a mean age of 39.7 ± 8.4 years. The dimensions of all 78 MTs were measured on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images using Invivo Dental 5 software.

Results: The intraobserver and interobserver errors were good for all measurements. A total of 858 MT measurements were taken. The widths were greater in men than in women, with significant differences. The MT dimensions showed correlations with patient age, whereby older patients presented with greater widths and lengths, but reduced heights. Three different anatomical types were detected according to patient age.

Conclusions: The dimensions (width, length, and height) of the MT vary according to patient age and sex. The MT dimensions conform to particular anatomical types, which should be taken into account when placing miniscrews in this region.

Citing Articles

Discriminating between the maxillary tuberosity and the alveolar tuberosity- a critical pictorial review.

Dandoczi C, Rusu M, Muresan A, Tudose R Surg Radiol Anat. 2025; 47(1):60.

PMID: 39841293 PMC: 11754339. DOI: 10.1007/s00276-025-03569-0.

Optimizing pterygoid implant placement without sinus intrusion in edentulous vietnamese patients: A comprehensive tomographic analysis and cross-sectional study.

Luong D, Lanh L, Thuy V, Loan P J Clin Exp Dent. 2024; 16(11):e1371-e1378.

PMID: 39670033 PMC: 11632734. DOI: 10.4317/jced.61787.

Anatomical factors of the maxillary tuberosity that influence molar distalization.

Lopez D, Olmos D, Morales M Korean J Orthod. 2024; 54(4):239-246.

PMID: 38887039 PMC: 11270146. DOI: 10.4041/kjod24.017.

Influence of the maxillary third molars and the surrounding cortical plate during maxillary tooth movement with TADS- A CBCT Study.

Felicita A, Thomas L, Maheswari T Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024; 28(3):1169-1179.

PMID: 38480618 DOI: 10.1007/s10006-024-01229-y.

Three-Dimensional Assessment and Comparison of the Maxillary Tuberosity Between Skeletal and Dental Class I and Class II Adults in Maxillary Third Molar Agenesis Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Human Study.

Manojna N, Sunil G, Ramya K, Ranganayakulu I, Raghu Ram R Cureus. 2023; 15(7):e42232.

PMID: 37605685 PMC: 10440149. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42232.

References

Rodriguez X, Rambla F, De Marcos Lopez L, Mendez V, Vela X, Garcia J . Anatomical study of the pterygomaxillary area for implant placement: cone beam computed tomographic scanning in 100 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29(5):1049-52. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3173. View

Santagata M, Tozzi U, Tartaro G, Santillo V, Giovanni C, Lamart E . Maxillary Sinus Augmentation with Autologous and Heterologous Bone Graft: A Clinical and Radiographic Report of Immediate and Delayed Implant Placement. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2015; 13(4):401-8. PMC: 4518798. DOI: 10.1007/s12663-013-0569-5. View

Venkateswaran S, Rao V, Krishnaswamy N . En-masse retraction using skeletal anchorage in the tuberosity and retromolar region. J Clin Orthod. 2011; 45(5):268-73. View

Farnsworth D, Rossouw P, Ceen R, Buschang P . Cortical bone thickness at common miniscrew implant placement sites. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 139(4):495-503. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.03.057. View

Poggio P, Incorvati C, Velo S, Carano A . "Safe zones": a guide for miniscrew positioning in the maxillary and mandibular arch. Angle Orthod. 2006; 76(2):191-7. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0191:SZAGFM]2.0.CO;2. View

Cheung L, Fung S, Li T, Samman N . Posterior maxillary anatomy: implications for Le Fort I osteotomy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998; 27(5):346-51. DOI: 10.1016/s0901-5027(98)80062-3. View

Lemieux G, Hart A, Cheretakis C, Goodmurphy C, Trexler S, McGary C . Computed tomographic characterization of mini-implant placement pattern and maximum anchorage force in human cadavers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 140(3):356-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.05.024. View

Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T . Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003; 23(4):313-23. View

Li K, Meara J, Alexander Jr A . Location of the descending palatine artery in relation to the Le Fort I osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996; 54(7):822-5; discussion 826-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0278-2391(96)90528-5. View

10.

Apinhasmit W, Chompoopong S, Methathrathip D, Sangvichien S, Karuwanarint S . Clinical anatomy of the posterior maxilla pertaining to Le Fort I osteotomy in Thais. Clin Anat. 2005; 18(5):323-9. DOI: 10.1002/ca.20131. View

11.

Kim S, Yoon H, Choi Y, Hwang E, Kook Y, Nelson G . Evaluation of interdental space of the maxillary posterior area for orthodontic mini-implants with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135(5):635-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.06.013. View

12.

Vardimon A, Shoshani K, Shpack N, Reimann S, Bourauel C, Brosh T . Incremental growth of the maxillary tuberosity from 6 to 20 years-A cross-sectional study. Arch Oral Biol. 2010; 55(9):655-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2010.05.012. View

13.

Watanabe H, Deguchi T, Hasegawa M, Ito M, Kim S, Takano-Yamamoto T . Orthodontic miniscrew failure rate and root proximity, insertion angle, bone contact length, and bone density. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2013; 16(1):44-55. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12003. View

14.

Chaimanee P, Suzuki B, Suzuki E . "Safe zones" for miniscrew implant placement in different dentoskeletal patterns. Angle Orthod. 2011; 81(3):397-403. PMC: 8923544. DOI: 10.2319/061710-111.1. View

15.

Lee S, Paik K, Kim M . Anatomical study of the pyramidal process of the palatine bone in relation to implant placement in the posterior maxilla. J Oral Rehabil. 2001; 28(2):125-32. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00741.x. View

16.

John V, Alqallaf H, de Bedout T . Periodontal Disease and Systemic Diseases: An Update for the Clinician. J Indiana Dent Assoc. 2016; 95(1):16-23. View

17.

Chung K, Jeong D, Kim S, Ko Y, Nelson G . En-masse retraction dependent on a temporary skeletal anchorage device without posterior bonding or banding in an adult with severe bidentoalveolar protrusion: seven years posttreatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 141(4):484-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.06.028. View

18.

Samrit V, Kharbanda O, Duggal R, Seith A, Malhotra V . Bone density and miniscrew stability in orthodontic patients. Aust Orthod J. 2013; 28(2):204-12. View

19.

Park J, Cho H . Three-dimensional evaluation of interradicular spaces and cortical bone thickness for the placement and initial stability of microimplants in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136(3):314.e1-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.01.023. View

20.

Lopes L, da Silva V, Santiago Jr J, Panzarini S, Pellizzer E . Placement of dental implants in the maxillary tuberosity: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 44(2):229-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.08.005. View