Association between Gonial Angle and Mandibular Residual Ridge Resorption in Implant-Overdenture Patients

Authors

PL Ranganayakidevi S Palaniappan, Faculty of Dentistry, SEGi University, Kota Damansara, MalaysiaFollow
Norsiah Yunus, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Norliza Ibrahim, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Siti Fauzza Ahmad, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Anitha Krishnan, Faculty of Dentistry, SEGi University, Kota Damansara, Malaysia

Abstract

Objectives: The gonial angle could be one of the contributing factors for the continuous bone resorption in edentulous persons. This study aimed to examine the association between the gonial angle and RRR in edentulous patients receiving mandibular implant-supported overdenture (ISOD) and to compare different gonial angle measuring techniques. Methods: Twenty-three individuals with opposing mandibular ISOD and maxillary full dentures were recruited. The proportional area index was used to calculate the posterior RRR. Orthopantomographs (OPGs) pre- and four years post-implant insertion were compared. Comparison of the gonial angle measurements was made on 5 patients using four measurement methods: (i) Two different vertical line tracing points on OPG (exterior border points and mid-condylar points), (ii) Measurement on a 3D model using a goniometer, (iii) Lateral cephalometric view of CBCT using Mimics software. Results: The posterior RRR showed no correlation with the gonial angle (r < 0.3, p > 0.05). Between the two OPG measurement techniques, there was no discernible difference (p = 0.185), and there is a strong association between both OPG measuring techniques and CBCT readings (R² = 0.927, 0.829). The manual measurement on the CBCT showed a modest correlation with models produced by 3D printing (R² = 0.098). Conclusion: The mandibular gonial angle did not correlate with posterior mandibular RRR.

References

1. Henry PJ. Tooth loss and implant replacement. Aust Dent J. 2000; 45(3):150–72.
2. Henry PJ, Bower RC, Wall CD. Rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible with osseointegrated dental implants: 10-year follow-up. Aust Dent J. 1995; 40(1):1–9.
3. Von Wowern N, Gotfredsen K. Implant-supported overdentures, a prevention of bone loss in edentulous mandibles? A 5-year follow-up study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12(1):19–25.
4. Khuder T, Yunus N, Sulaiman E, Ibrahim N, Khalid T, Masood M. Association between occlusal force distribution in implant overdenture prostheses and residual ridge resorption. J Oral Rehabil. 2017; 44(5):398–404.
5. Ingervall B, Minder C. Correlation between maximum bite force and facial morphology in children. Angle Orthod. 1997; 67(6):415–24.
6. Ahmad R, Abu-Hassan MI, Chen J, Li Q, Swain MV. The relationship of mandibular morphology with residual ridge resorption associated with implant-retained overdentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29(6):573–80.
7. Mercier P, Lafontant R. Residual alveolar ridge atrophy: classification and influence of facial morphology. J Prosthet Dent. 1979; 41(1):90–100.
8. Farella M, Bakke M, Michelotti A, Rapuano A, Martina R. Masseter thickness, endurance and exercise‐induced pain in subjects with different vertical craniofacial morphology. Eur J Oral Sci. 2003; 111(3):183–88.
9. Takada K, Lowe AA, Freund VK. Canonical correlations between masticatory muscle orientation and dentoskeletal morphology in children. Am J Orthod. 1984; 86(4):331–41.
10. Ceylan G, Yanikoglu N, Yilmaz AB, Ceylan Y. Changes in the mandibular angle in the dentulous and edentulous states. J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 80(6):680–84.
11. Joo JK, Lim YJ, Kwon HB, Ahn SJ. Panoramic radiographic evaluation of the mandibular morphological changes in elderly dentate and edentulous subjects. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013; 71(2):357–62.
12. Reis VA, Zaidel DW. Functional asymmetry in the human face: Perception of health in the left and right sides of the face. Laterality. 2001; 6(3):225–31.
13. Castelino RL. Imaging in Oral Implantology. In Shetty M, Hegde R, John N, editor. Essentials in Oral Implantology. Blue Rose Publishers, Delhi; 2024. pp. 20–38.
14. Jensen E, Palling M. The gonial angle: A survey. Am J Orthod. 1954; 40(2):120–33.
15. Helmy M, Lammens J, Struelens A, Verdonck A, Willems G, Schoenaers J, et al. Gonial angle changes after bilateral unidirectional mandibular distraction in sheep. Eur J Orthod. 2003; 25(2):127–33.
16. Ceylan G. Changes in the mandibular angle in the dentulous and edentulous states. J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 80(6):680–84.
17. Benavides E, Rios HF, Ganz SD, An CH, Resnik R, Reardon GT, Wang HL. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: The International Congress of Oral Implantologists consensus report. Implant Dent. 2012; 21(2):78–86.
18. Serrant PS, McIntyre GT, Thomson DJ. Localization of ectopic maxillary canines—is CBCT more accurate than conventional horizontal or vertical parallax? J Orthod. 2014; 41(1):13–8.
19. Yeo DKL, Freer TJ, Brockhurst PJ. Distortions in panoramic radiographs. Aust Orthod J. 2002; 18(2):92–8.
20. Orzeł B, Stecuła K. Comparison of 3D printout quality from FDM and MSLA technology in unit production. Symmetry. 2022; 14(5):910.
21. Xinhua L, Shengpeng L, Zhou L, Xianhua Z, Xiaohu C, Zhongbin W. An investigation on distortion of PLA thin-plate part in the FDM process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2015; 79:1117–26.
22. Wang X, Jiang M, Zhou Z, Gou J, Hui D. 3D printing of polymer matrix composites: A review and prospective. Compos Part B Eng. 2017; 110:442–58.
23. Unnanuntana A, Rebolledo BJ, Khair MM, DiCarlo EF, Lane JM. Diseases affecting bone quality: beyond osteoporosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469(8):2194–206.

Recommended Citation

S Palaniappan, P., Yunus, N., Ibrahim, N., Ahmad, S., & Krishnan, A. Association between Gonial Angle and Mandibular Residual Ridge Resorption in Implant-Overdenture Patients. J Dent Indones. 2025;32(3): 182-188