Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
PERIODONTOLOGY 2000
97
Merheb et al.
Anatomical review
The buccal bone plate is a component of the alveolar
process, which is linked to the development and
eruption of the teeth. The alveolar process is very
responsive to changes occurring in the dental structures it supports. Via constant remodeling (a combination of bone-resorption and bone-apposition
processes) it can adapt to physiologic and pathological changes affecting the teeth, such as tooth eruption, natural or forced tooth movement, varying
stress intensity and frequency, development of infection foci and surgical trauma. The buccal bone plate
is a structure comprised of an external (buccal) lining
of cortical bone and an internal (oral) socket wall
made of compact bone, also known as alveolar bone
proper, and is identied as lamina dura on radiographs. In between those plates lies a core body of
cancellous bone. This has been found to be generally
thinner than its palatal/lingual counterpart and
therefore more prone to osseous dehiscences and
fenestrations and subsequent soft-tissue recession
(18). Additionally, it tends to be thicker in the posterior regions than in the anterior regions. Its oral component forms part of the tooth socket and is
composed of bundle bone, which serves as an anchor
point for the periodontal Sharpeys bers. The presence of bundle bone is conditioned by the presence
of an adjacent tooth, and tooth loss or removal leads
inevitably to the loss of bundle bone and subsequently to partial resorption of the buccal bone plate.
The vascularization of the buccal bone plate originates from the superior and inferior alveolar arteries.
The nourishing canals of those arteries run through
the bony structures within the Haversian canals and
the Volkmann canals. Anastomoses are frequent.
Although several nerves run through the jaw bones or
on its surface, the bone itself does not contain neural
terminations.
98
Fig. 1. Mesio-distal sections illustrating the extraction socket after different intervals of healing: (a) 1 day, (b) 3 days,
(c) 7 days, (d) 14 days, (e) 30 days, (f) 60 days, (g) 90 days, (h) 120 days, (i) 180 days. Hematoxylin-eosin staining; original
magnication 316. From Cardaropoli et al. (16).
Fig. 2. Bone morphology changes following tooth extraction. The initial contour is drawn in red and the bone contour, 6 months after extraction, is drawn in blue.
99
Merheb et al.
100
101
Merheb et al.
102
103
Merheb et al.
Conclusions
An understanding of buccal bone evolution after
tooth extraction and after implant placement is of
utmost importance, particularly in the highly
demanding esthetic zone. Both animal and human
studies have shown a considerable amount of bone
remodeling following tooth extraction. This remodeling is predominant in the horizontal dimension and
more limited in the vertical dimension. Moreover, the
extent of resorption seems to be a function of the
presence or absence of neighboring teeth, which act
as a buffer against extensive resorption. These elements need to be taken into account by the surgeon
when opting for immediate implant placement.
Therefore, most authors recommend that implants
should be positioned in fresh extraction sockets
slightly palatal and 12 mm subcrestal.
Implants placed in the healed site are subject to
much less bone spatial change. In the initial phase
following placement, modest buccal bone resorption,
of about 0.5 mm, is to be expected. Most authors
consider this as a consequence of bone remodeling
following surgical trauma (49). The long-term data,
presently very scarce (47), seem to suggest that minimal to no bone remodeling is to be expected at later
stages. An initial critical buccal bone thickness of
2 mm has been recommended to prevent vertical
resorption. However, the literature currently available
does not fully back this claim.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
References
17.
1. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. A 15-year
study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the
edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981: 10: 387416.
2. Amler MH. The time sequence of tissue regeneration in
human extraction wounds. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol
1969: 27: 309318.
3. Amler MH, Johnson PL, Salman I. Histological and histochemical investigation of human alveolar socket healing in
undisturbed extraction wounds. J Am Dent Assoc 1960: 61:
3244.
4. Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog.
J Clin Periodontol 2005: 32: 212218.
5. Barone A, Ricci M, Tonelli P, Santini S, Covani U. Tissue
changes of extraction sockets in humans: a comparison of
spontaneous healing vs. ridge preservation with secondary
soft tissue healing. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013: 24: 1231
1237.
6. Becker W, Becker BE. Guided tissue regeneration for
implants placed into extraction sockets and for implant
104
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
dehiscences: surgical techniques and case report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1990: 10: 376391.
Belser UC, Bernard JP, Buser D. Implants in the Esthetic
zone. In: Lindhe J, Lang NP, Karring T, editors. Clinical
periodontology and implant dentistry: implants in the
esthetic zone. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2008: 1146
1174.
Belser UC, Grutter L, Vailati F, Bornstein MM, Weber HP,
Buser D. Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary
anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria: a cross-sectional, retrospective study in 45 patients
with a 2- to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic
scores. J Periodontol 2009: 80: 140151.
Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Dimension of the periimplant
mucosa. Biological width revisited. J Clin Periodontol 1996:
23: 971973.
Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Buser D, Lindhe J. The jumping
distance revisited: an experimental study in the dog. Clin
Oral Implants Res 2003: 14: 3542.
Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Hard-tissue alterations
following immediate implant placement in extraction sites.
J Clin Periodontol 2004: 31: 820828.
Bragger U, Pasquali L, Kornman KS. Remodelling of interdental alveolar bone after periodontal ap procedures
assessed by means of computer-assisted densitometric
image analysis (CADIA). J Clin Periodontol 1988: 15: 558
564.
Burkhardt R, Joss A, Lang NP. Soft tissue dehiscence coverage around endosseous implants: a prospective cohort
study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008: 19: 451457.
Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for
implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and
surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004:
19(Suppl.): 4361.
Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Achieving optimal esthetic
results. ITI treatment guide: implant therapy in the esthetic
zone: single tooth replacement 2007: 1: 25230.
Cardaropoli G, Araujo M, Lindhe J. Dynamics of bone tissue
formation in tooth extraction sites. An experimental study
in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 2003: 30: 809818.
Cardaropoli G, Lekholm U, Wennstrom JL. Tissue alterations at implant-supported single-tooth replacements: a
1-year prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res
2006: 17: 165171.
Carranza FA, Bernard GW. The tooth supporting structures.
Carranzas Clin Periodontol 2002: 9: 3657.
Chen ST, Darby IB, Reynolds EC. A prospective clinical
study of non-submerged immediate implants: clinical outcomes and esthetic results. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007: 18:
552562.
Chen ST, Wilson TG Jr, Hammerle CH. Immediate or early
placement of implants following tooth extraction: review of
biologic basis, clinical procedures, and outcomes. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants 2004: 19(Suppl.): 1225.
Cornelini R, Cangini F, Martuscelli G, Wennstrom J. Deproteinized bovine bone and biodegradable barrier membranes to support healing following immediate placement
of transmucosal implants: a short-term controlled clinical
trial. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2004: 24: 555563.
Degidi M, Nardi D, Daprile G, Piattelli A. Buccal bone plate
in the immediately placed and restored maxillary single
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
105