Do Morphological Changes in the Anterior Mandibular Region Interfere with Standard Implant Placement? A Cone Beam Computed Tomographic Cross-Sectional Study
Table 1
Difference between dentate and edentulous patients in mandibular height in mm and mandibular thickness at various levels.
Segment
Level
Edentulous patients (group I), N = 26
Dentate patients (group II), N = 45
value
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Segment 1 thickness
A
6.70
2.13
8.88
2.09
<0.0001
B
8.92
2.01
9.53
2.16
0.25
C
9.96
1.68
10.54
2.89
0.36
Segment 1 height
23.89
5.30
29.88
4.66
<0.0001
Segment 2 thickness
A
5.85
1.60
7.50
1.80
<0.0001
B
9.01
2.44
7.95
1.93
0.048
C
11.24
2.38
9.57
2.64
0.01
Segment 2 height
23.22
4.60
30.14
5.56
<0.0001
Segment 3 thickness
A
6.09
2.05
7.50
1.71
0.003
B
8.88
2.26
7.65
1.94
0.02
C
10.62
1.98
9.32
2.56
0.03
Segment 3 height
23.11
4.65
30.48
5.33
<0.0001
Segment 4a thickness
A
6.47
2.15
8.28
1.60
0.001
B
9.35
1.85
9.22
2.11
0.80
C
10.11
2.38
10.61
2.89
0.47
Segment 4 height
22.92
5.12
30.68
4.74
<0.0001
Segment 5b thickness
A
7.08
2.13
8.49
2.82
0.10
B
9.49
1.74
10.33
2.51
0.26
C
9.64
2.24
12.12
3.08
0.009
Segment 5 height
22.09
5.84
30.29
5.15
<0.0001
Segment 6c thickness
A
8.90
.
7.05
1.90
0.37
B
12.80
.
9.53
1.78
0.11
C
11.90
.
11.07
2.88
0.79
Segment 6 height
21.50
—
30.17
6.36
0.22
aNumber of edentulous and dentate patients = 26 and 45; bn = 14 and 35; cn = 1 and 11.Statistically significant at .
