Determination of Palatal Soft Tissue Thickness and Safe Zone for Palatal Soft Tissue Harvest Using CBCT: A Retrospective Study

Aim. Our decision to conduct this study was motivated by the dearth of knowledge on geographical variations in the thickness of the palatal masticatory mucosa. The aim of the present study is to comprehensively analyze the palatal mucosal thickness and indicate the safety zone for palatal soft tissu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hanan Aldhanhani, Bhavna Jha Kukreja, Sesha Reddy, Jovita D’souza, Hossam Abdelmagyd
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2023-01-01
Series:International Journal of Dentistry
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/8417073
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832546751148457984
author Hanan Aldhanhani
Bhavna Jha Kukreja
Sesha Reddy
Jovita D’souza
Hossam Abdelmagyd
author_facet Hanan Aldhanhani
Bhavna Jha Kukreja
Sesha Reddy
Jovita D’souza
Hossam Abdelmagyd
author_sort Hanan Aldhanhani
collection DOAJ
description Aim. Our decision to conduct this study was motivated by the dearth of knowledge on geographical variations in the thickness of the palatal masticatory mucosa. The aim of the present study is to comprehensively analyze the palatal mucosal thickness and indicate the safety zone for palatal soft tissue harvesting using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Material and Methods. As this was a retrospective analysis of cases previously reported to the hospital, written consent was not acquired. The analysis was carried out on 30 CBCT images. Two examiners evaluated the images separately to avoid bias. Measurements were done from the midportion of the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) to the midpalatal suture in a horizontal line. Measurements were recorded from the maxillary canine, first premolar, second premolar, first molar, and second molar and were marked in axial and coronal sections at distances of 3, 6, and 9 mm from the CEJ. The relationship between palate soft tissue thickness in relation to each tooth, palatal vault angle, teeth, and the greater palatine grove was evaluated. Differences in the palatal mucosal thickness according to age, gender, and tooth site were evaluated. Categorical data were presented as frequencies and percentages. Numerical data are presented as mean and standard deviation values. They are explored for normality using Shapiro–Wilk’s test. Data are normally distributed and are analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test for independent variables and paired t-test for repeated measures. The significance level is set at p≤0.05 for all tests. Statistical analysis is performed with R statistical analysis software version 4.1.3 for Windows. Results. For sex and nationality, there was no significant association (p>0.05), while for age, cases 35 years and older had significantly higher mucosal thickness than cases younger than 35 years old (p<0.001). For all teeth, the association was statistically significant (p<0.001). For the canine and first premolar, cases with deep angles had significantly higher mean values than those with moderate angles (p<0.001). For other teeth, cases with deep angles had significantly higher mean values than other angles (p<0.001). Conclusion. Palatal mucosal thickness varied significantly from the canine to the second molar; the most appropriate site for graft harvesting is the canine to second premolar area which is 9–12 mm from the midpalatal suture aspect and is considered a safe zone for harvesting palatal graft.
format Article
id doaj-art-9a2ff2454523442e8e9c55f2a5a0c5d9
institution Kabale University
issn 1687-8736
language English
publishDate 2023-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series International Journal of Dentistry
spelling doaj-art-9a2ff2454523442e8e9c55f2a5a0c5d92025-02-03T06:47:21ZengWileyInternational Journal of Dentistry1687-87362023-01-01202310.1155/2023/8417073Determination of Palatal Soft Tissue Thickness and Safe Zone for Palatal Soft Tissue Harvest Using CBCT: A Retrospective StudyHanan Aldhanhani0Bhavna Jha Kukreja1Sesha Reddy2Jovita D’souza3Hossam Abdelmagyd4Department of Preventive Dental SciencesDepartment of Preventive Dental SciencesDepartment of Preventive Dental SciencesDepartment of Preventive Dental SciencesDepartment of Preventive Dental SciencesAim. Our decision to conduct this study was motivated by the dearth of knowledge on geographical variations in the thickness of the palatal masticatory mucosa. The aim of the present study is to comprehensively analyze the palatal mucosal thickness and indicate the safety zone for palatal soft tissue harvesting using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Material and Methods. As this was a retrospective analysis of cases previously reported to the hospital, written consent was not acquired. The analysis was carried out on 30 CBCT images. Two examiners evaluated the images separately to avoid bias. Measurements were done from the midportion of the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) to the midpalatal suture in a horizontal line. Measurements were recorded from the maxillary canine, first premolar, second premolar, first molar, and second molar and were marked in axial and coronal sections at distances of 3, 6, and 9 mm from the CEJ. The relationship between palate soft tissue thickness in relation to each tooth, palatal vault angle, teeth, and the greater palatine grove was evaluated. Differences in the palatal mucosal thickness according to age, gender, and tooth site were evaluated. Categorical data were presented as frequencies and percentages. Numerical data are presented as mean and standard deviation values. They are explored for normality using Shapiro–Wilk’s test. Data are normally distributed and are analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test for independent variables and paired t-test for repeated measures. The significance level is set at p≤0.05 for all tests. Statistical analysis is performed with R statistical analysis software version 4.1.3 for Windows. Results. For sex and nationality, there was no significant association (p>0.05), while for age, cases 35 years and older had significantly higher mucosal thickness than cases younger than 35 years old (p<0.001). For all teeth, the association was statistically significant (p<0.001). For the canine and first premolar, cases with deep angles had significantly higher mean values than those with moderate angles (p<0.001). For other teeth, cases with deep angles had significantly higher mean values than other angles (p<0.001). Conclusion. Palatal mucosal thickness varied significantly from the canine to the second molar; the most appropriate site for graft harvesting is the canine to second premolar area which is 9–12 mm from the midpalatal suture aspect and is considered a safe zone for harvesting palatal graft.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/8417073
spellingShingle Hanan Aldhanhani
Bhavna Jha Kukreja
Sesha Reddy
Jovita D’souza
Hossam Abdelmagyd
Determination of Palatal Soft Tissue Thickness and Safe Zone for Palatal Soft Tissue Harvest Using CBCT: A Retrospective Study
International Journal of Dentistry
title Determination of Palatal Soft Tissue Thickness and Safe Zone for Palatal Soft Tissue Harvest Using CBCT: A Retrospective Study
title_full Determination of Palatal Soft Tissue Thickness and Safe Zone for Palatal Soft Tissue Harvest Using CBCT: A Retrospective Study
title_fullStr Determination of Palatal Soft Tissue Thickness and Safe Zone for Palatal Soft Tissue Harvest Using CBCT: A Retrospective Study
title_full_unstemmed Determination of Palatal Soft Tissue Thickness and Safe Zone for Palatal Soft Tissue Harvest Using CBCT: A Retrospective Study
title_short Determination of Palatal Soft Tissue Thickness and Safe Zone for Palatal Soft Tissue Harvest Using CBCT: A Retrospective Study
title_sort determination of palatal soft tissue thickness and safe zone for palatal soft tissue harvest using cbct a retrospective study
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/8417073
work_keys_str_mv AT hananaldhanhani determinationofpalatalsofttissuethicknessandsafezoneforpalatalsofttissueharvestusingcbctaretrospectivestudy
AT bhavnajhakukreja determinationofpalatalsofttissuethicknessandsafezoneforpalatalsofttissueharvestusingcbctaretrospectivestudy
AT seshareddy determinationofpalatalsofttissuethicknessandsafezoneforpalatalsofttissueharvestusingcbctaretrospectivestudy
AT jovitadsouza determinationofpalatalsofttissuethicknessandsafezoneforpalatalsofttissueharvestusingcbctaretrospectivestudy
AT hossamabdelmagyd determinationofpalatalsofttissuethicknessandsafezoneforpalatalsofttissueharvestusingcbctaretrospectivestudy