Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Oral Radiology
Published in: Oral Radiology 4/2023

16-08-2023 | Digital Volume Tomography | Original Article

Assessment of palatal mucosal thickness and location of the greater palatine foramen using cone-beam computed tomography: a retrospective study

Authors: Bahar Füsun Oduncuoğlu, Hazal Karslioğlu, Ipek Naz Karasu, Mediha Nur Nisanci Yilmaz, Elif Inonu

Published in: Oral Radiology | Issue 4/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to measure the palatal mucosal thickness and examine the location of the greater palatine foramen using cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT).

Methods

In this study, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of the maxillary posterior region of 120 subjects were evaluated. The palatal mucosal thickness (PMT), palatal width and depth, and location of the greater palatine foramen (GPF) were determined on CBCT. The differences in the palatal mucosal thickness according to gender and palatal width/palatal depth were analyzed. The location of the GPF related to the maxillary molars was noted.

Results

The mean palatal mucosal thicknesses from the canine to the second molar teeth were 3.66, 3.90, 4.06, 3.76, and 3.92 mm, respectively. The mean PMT at the second premolar was statistically thicker than at other regions (p < 0,001). There was no relationship between PMT and gender. However, the palatal depth and width of the males were greater than females. (p = 0.004 and p = 0.014, respectively) PMT in the low palatal vault group had statistically higher compared to the high palatal vault group. (p = 0.023) Greater palatine foramen was mostly observed between second and third molar teeth. (48%).

Conclusions

According to our results, first and second premolar regions can be preferable in soft tissue grafting procedures for safe and successful treatment outcomes. The measurement of the thickness of the palatal mucosa and the evaluation of the greater palatine foramen location before the surgical procedures are essential steps to harvest from the ideal donor site and to achieve optimal surgical outcomes.
Literature
1.
Chambrone L, Chambrone D, Pustiglioni FE, Chambrone LA, Lima LA. Can subepithelial connective tissue grafts be considered the gold standard procedure in the treatment of miller class I and II recession-type defects? J Dent. 2008;36(9):659–71.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Bouchard P, Malet J, Borghetti A. Decision-making in aesthetics: root coverage revisited. Periodontol. 2001;27(1):97–120.CrossRef
3.
Miller PD Jr. Root coverage using the free soft tissue autograft following citric acid application III. A successful and predictable procedure in areas of deep-wide recession. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1985;5(2):14–37.PubMed
4.
Hangorsky U, Bissada NF. Clinical assessment of free gingival graft effectiveness on the maintenance of periodontal health. J Periodontol. 1980;51(5):274–8.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Tözüm TF, Dini FM. Treatment of adjacent gingival recessions with subepithelial connective tissue grafts and the modified tunnel technique. Quintessence Int. 2003;34(1):7–13.PubMed
6.
Zucchelli G, Tavelli L, McGuire MK, Rasperini G, Feinberg SE, Wang HL, et al. Autogenous soft tissue grafting for periodontal and peri-implant plastic surgical reconstruction. J Periodontol. 2020;91(1):9–16.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zuhr O, Bäumer D, Hürzeler M. The addition of soft tissue replacement grafts in plastic periodontal and implant surgery: critical elements in design and execution. J Clin Periodontol. 2014;41(Suppl 1):S123–42.PubMed
8.
Yu SK, Lee BH, Lee MH, Cho KH, Kim DK, Kim HJ. Histomorphometric analysis of the palatal mucosa associated with periodontal plastic surgery on cadavers. Surg Radiol Anat. 2013;35(6):463–9.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Mörmann W, Schaer F, Firestone AR. The Relationship between success of free gingival grafts and transplant thickness: revascularization and shrinkage—a one year clinical study. J Periodontol. 1981;52(2):74–80.PubMedCrossRef
10.
11.
Song J-E, Um Y-J, Kim C-S, Choi S-H, Cho K-S, Kim C-K, et al. Thickness of posterior palatal masticatory mucosa: the use of computerized tomography. J Periodontol. 2008;79(3):406–12.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Chackartchi T, Romanos GE, Sculean A. Soft tissue-related complications and management around dental implants. Periodontol. 2019;81(1):124–38.CrossRef
13.
Griffin TJ, Cheung WS, Zavras AI, Damoulis PD. Postoperative complications following gingival augmentation procedures. J Periodontol. 2006;77(12):2070–9.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Klosek SK, Rungruang T. Anatomical study of the greater palatine artery and related structures of the palatal vault: considerations for palate as the subepithelial connective tissue graft donor site. Surg Radiol Anat. 2009;31(4):245–50.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Tavelli L, Barootchi S, Ravidà A, Oh TJ, Wang HL. What Is the safety zone for palatal soft tissue graft harvesting based on the locations of the greater palatine artery and foramen? a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77(2):271.e1-271.e9.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zucchelli G, De SM. Treatment of multiple recession-type defects in patients with esthetic demands. J Periodontol. 2000;71(9):1506–14.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Studer SP, Allen EP, Rees TC, Kouba A. The thickness of masticatory mucosa in the human hard palate and tuberosity as potential donor sites for ridge augmentation procedures. J Periodontol. 1997;68(2):145–51.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Wara-Aswapati N, Pitiphat W, Chandrapho N, Rattanayatikul C, Karimbux N. Thickness of palatal masticatory mucosa associated with age. J Periodontol. 2001;72(10):1407–12.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Eger T, Muller HP, Heinecke A. Ultrasonic determination of gingival thickness. Subject variation and influence of tooth type and clinical features. J Clin Periodontol. 1996;23(9):839–45.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Barriviera M, Duarte WR, Januário AL, Faber J, Bezerra ACB. A new method to assess and measure palatal masticatory mucosa by cone-beam computerized tomography. J Clin Periodontol. 2009;36(7):564–8.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Hilgenfeld T, Kästel T, Heil A, Rammelsberg P, Heiland S, Bendszus M, et al. High-resolution dental magnetic resonance imaging for planning palatal graft surgery—a clinical pilot study. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45(4):462–70.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Müller HP, Schaller N, Eger T. Ultrasonic determination of thickness of masticatory mucosa: A methodologic study. Oral Surgery, Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontology. 1999;88(2):248–53.CrossRef
23.
Heil A, Schwindling FS, Jelinek C, Fischer M, Prager M, Gonzalez EL, et al. Determination of the palatal masticatory mucosa thickness by dental MRi: a prospective study analysing age and gender effects. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018;47(2):20170282.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, Loubele M, Schutyser F, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. State-of-the-art on cone beam CT imaging for preoperative planning of implant placement. Clin Oral Investig. 2006;10(1):1–7.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Suomalainen A, Pakbaznejad Esmaeili E, Robinson S. Dentomaxillofacial imaging with panoramic views and cone beam CT. Insights Imaging. 2015;6(1):1–16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Januário AL, Barriviera M, Duarte WR. Soft tissue cone-beam computed tomography: a novel method for the measurement of gingival tissue and the dimensions of the dentogingival unit. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2008;20(6):366–73.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Ogawa M, Katagiri S, Koyanagi T, Maekawa S, Shiba T, Ohsugi Y, et al. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography in evaluation of palatal mucosa thickness. J Clin Periodontol. 2020;47(4):479–88.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Gupta P, Jan SM, Behal R, Mir RA, Shafi M. Accuracy of cone-beam computerized tomography in determining the thickness of palatal masticatory mucosa. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2015;19(4):396–400.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Gargiulo AW, Wentz FM, Orban B. Dimensions and relations of the dentogingival junction in humans. J Periodontol. 1961;32(3):261–7.CrossRef
30.
Yilmaz HG, Boke F, Ayali A. Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of the soft tissue thickness and greater palatine foramen location in the palate. J Clin Periodontol. 2015;42(5):458–61.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Müller HP, Schaller N, Eger T, Heinecke A. Thickness of masticatory mucosa. J Clin Periodontol. 2000;27(6):431–6.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Reiser GM, Bruno JF, Mahan PE, Larkin LH. The subepithelial connective tissue graft palatal donor site: anatomic considerations for surgeons. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1996;16(2):130–7.PubMed
33.
Said KN, Khalid ASA, Fathima I, Farook F. Anatomic factors influencing dimensions of soft tissue graft from the hard palate a clinical study. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2020;6(4):462–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
Stipetic J, Hrala Z, Celebic A. Thickness of masticatory mucosa in the human hard palate and tuberosity dependent on gender and body mass index. Coll Antropol. 2005;29:243–7.PubMed
35.
Karadag I, Yilmaz HG. Palatal mucosa thickness and palatal neurovascular bundle position evaluation by cone-beam computed tomography-retrospective study on relationships with palatal vault anatomy. PeerJ. 2021;9: e12699.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
36.
Hormdee D, Yamsuk T, Sutthiprapaporn P. Palatal soft tissue thickness on maxillary posterior teeth and its relation to palatal vault angle measured by cone-beam computed tomography. Int J Dent. 2020;2020:8844236.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
Ikuta CRS, Cardoso CL, Ferreira O, Lauris JRP, Souza PHC, Rubira-Bullen IRF. Position of the greater palatine foramen: an anatomical study through cone beam computed tomography images. Surg Radiol Anat. 2013;35(9):837–42.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Wang TM, Kuo KJ, Shih C, Ho LL, Liu JC. Assessment of the relative locations of the greater palatine foramen in adult chinese skulls. Cells Tissues Organs. 1988;132(3):182–6.CrossRef
39.
Fu J-H, Hasso DG, Yeh C-Y, Leong DJM, Chan H-L, Wang H-L. The accuracy of identifying the greater palatine neurovascular bundle: a cadaver study. J Periodontol. 2011;82:1000–6.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Gibelli D, Borlando A, Dolci C, Pucciarelli V, Cattaneo C, Sforza C. Anatomical characteristics of greater palatine foramen: a novel point of view. Surg Radiol Anat. 2017;39:1359–68.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Beetge MM, Todorovic VS, Oettlé A, Hoffman J, Van Zyl AW. A micro-ct study of the greater palatine foramen in human skulls. J Oral Sci. 2018;60(1):51–6.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Assessment of palatal mucosal thickness and location of the greater palatine foramen using cone-beam computed tomography: a retrospective study
Authors
Bahar Füsun Oduncuoğlu
Hazal Karslioğlu
Ipek Naz Karasu
Mediha Nur Nisanci Yilmaz
Elif Inonu
Publication date
16-08-2023
Publisher
Springer Nature Singapore
Published in
Oral Radiology / Issue 4/2023
Print ISSN: 0911-6028
Electronic ISSN: 1613-9674
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-023-00699-2

Other articles of this Issue 4/2023

Oral Radiology 4/2023 Go to the issue

Original Article

Non-Gaussian model-based diffusion-weighted imaging of oral squamous cell carcinoma: associations with Ki-67 proliferation status

Original Article

Deep convolutional neural network—the evaluation of cervical vertebrae maturation

Correction

Correction: Evaluation of the temporomandibular joint morphology and condylar position with cone-beam computerized tomography in patients with internal derangement

Original Article

Effect of data size on tooth numbering performance via artificial intelligence using panoramic radiographs

Original Article

ResMIBCU-Net: an encoder–decoder network with residual blocks, modified inverted residual block, and bi-directional ConvLSTM for impacted tooth segmentation in panoramic X-ray images

Original Article

Volume-based 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography parameters correlate with delayed neck metastasis in clinical early-stage oral squamous cell carcinoma