Abstract

Aim: To evaluate morphometric characteristics relevant to immediate implant planning in the maxillary anterior region using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, CBCT images of 597 maxillary anterior teeth, including central incisors, lateral incisors, and canines, from 119 individuals were analyzed. Labial bone thickness, sagittal root position, apical bone height, labial concavity, undercut depth, and alveolar width were assessed. For each tooth, two virtual implant placement strategies were simulated: prosthetically driven and bone-driven.

Results: Labial bone thickness was <1 mm in most cases, and sagittal root position predominantly exhibited a Class III distribution (77.8%). Apical bone height was generally adequate for primary stability. More pronounced undercuts and concavities were observed in the lateral incisors. Prosthetically driven implant placement was associated with an increased risk of facial bone compromise, whereas the bone-driven approach resulted in safer implant positioning.

Conclusion: Immediate implant planning in the maxillary anterior region frequently requires a bone-driven approach, primarily because of thin labial bone and root-position characteristics. CBCT-based three-dimensional evaluation plays a critical role in achieving safe, predictable, and individualized implant planning.

Keywords: Cone-beam computed tomography, dental implants, regional anatomy

Copyright and license

Copyright © 2026 The Author(s). This is an open-access article published by Bolu İzzet Baysal Training and Research Hospital under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite

1.
Canpolat B, Alan R. Analysis of maxillary aesthetic region morphology for immediate implant planning: A CBCT study. Northwestern Med J. 2026;6(4):296-307. https://doi.org/10.54307/NWMJ.2026.253

References

  1. Buser D, Chappuis V, Belser UC, Chen S. Implant placement post extraction in esthetic single tooth sites: when immediate, when early, when late? Periodontol 2000. 2017; 73(1): 84-102. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12170
  2. Cosyn J, Eghbali A, De Bruyn H, Collys K, Cleymaet R, De Rouck T. Immediate single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla: 3-year results of a case series on hard and soft tissue response and aesthetics. J Clin Periodontol. 2011; 38(8): 746-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01748.x
  3. Liu F, Wang YH, Xiong YJ, Ni YL. Modified oral implant restoration improves dental aesthetics, function, and patient satisfaction in maxillary anterior tooth loss. Am J Transl Res. 2025; 17(2): 983-91. https://doi.org/10.62347/BDFY3122
  4. Bahar AD, Sagi MS, Mohd Zuhairi FA, Wan Hassan WN. Dental aesthetics and self-esteem of patients seeking orthodontic treatment. Healthcare (Basel). 2024; 12(16): 1576. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12161576
  5. Tonetti MS, Cortellini P, Graziani F, et al. Immediate versus delayed implant placement after anterior single tooth extraction: the timing randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2017; 44(2): 215-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12666
  6. Todorovic VS, Postma TC, Hoffman J, van Zyl AW. Buccal and palatal alveolar bone dimensions in the anterior maxilla: a micro-CT study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023; 25(2): 261-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13175
  7. Patel R, Ucer C, Wright S, Khan RS. Differences in dental implant survival between immediate vs. delayed placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent J (Basel). 2023; 11(9): 218. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj11090218
  8. Donos N, Asche NV, Akbar AN, et al. Impact of timing of dental implant placement and loading: summary and consensus statements of group 1-The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021; 32(Suppl 21): 85-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13809
  9. Botermans A, Lidén A, de Carvalho Machado V, Chrcanovic BR. Immediate implant placement in the maxillary aesthetic zone: a cone beam computed tomography study. J Clin Med. 2021; 10(24): 5853. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10245853
  10. Heimes D, Schiegnitz E, Kuchen R, Kämmerer PW, Al-Nawas B. Buccal bone thickness in anterior and posterior teeth-a systematic review. Healthcare (Basel). 2021; 9(12): 1663. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9121663
  11. Gluckman H, Pontes CC, Du Toit J. Radial plane tooth position and bone wall dimensions in the anterior maxilla: a CBCT classification for immediate implant placement. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120(1): 50-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.09.005
  12. Kim JH, Susin C, Min JH, et al. Extraction sockets: erratic healing impeding factors. J Clin Periodontol. 2014; 41(1): 80-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12173
  13. Couso-Queiruga E, Stuhr S, Tattan M, Chambrone L, Avila-Ortiz G. Post-extraction dimensional changes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2021; 48(1): 126-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13390
  14. Araújo MG, Silva CO, Misawa M, Sukekava F. Alveolar socket healing: what can we learn? Periodontol 2000. 2015; 68(1): 122-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12082
  15. Fokas G, Vaughn VM, Scarfe WC, Bornstein MM. Accuracy of linear measurements on CBCT images related to presurgical implant treatment planning: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29(Suppl 16): 393-415. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13142
  16. Rios HF, Borgnakke WS, Benavides E. The use of cone-beam computed tomography in management of patients requiring dental implants: an American Academy of Periodontology best evidence review. J Periodontol. 2017; 88(10): 946-59. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2017.160548
  17. Kan JYK, Roe P, Rungcharassaeng K, et al. Classification of sagittal root position in relation to the anterior maxillary osseous housing for immediate implant placement: a cone beam computed tomography study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26(4): 873-6.
  18. El Nahass H, N Naiem S. Analysis of the dimensions of the labial bone wall in the anterior maxilla: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26(4): e57-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12332
  19. Chung MP, Wang IC, Chan HL, Wang HL. Evaluation of buccal bone concavity in the esthetic zone: a cadaver study. Implant Dent. 2017; 26(5): 751-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000661
  20. Lim HC, Kang DU, Baek H, et al. Cone-beam computed tomographic analysis of the alveolar ridge profile and virtual implant placement for the anterior maxilla. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2019; 49(5): 299-309. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2019.49.5.299
  21. Shi M, Wang X, Zeng P, et al. Analysis of the sagittal root angle and its correlation with hard and soft tissue indices in anterior teeth for immediate implant evaluation: a retrospective study. BMC Oral Health. 2021; 21(1): 494. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01848-x
  22. Parra-Moreno FJ, Schiavo-Di Flaviano V, Egido-Moreno S, Saka-Herranz C, Estrugo-Devesa A, López-López J. Pre-surgical socket analysis for immediate implant placement. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2024; 29(3): e305-17. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.26269
  23. Zhang W, Skrypczak A, Weltman R. Anterior maxilla alveolar ridge dimension and morphology measurement by cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) for immediate implant treatment planning. BMC Oral Health. 2015; 15: 65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-015-0055-1
  24. Ikbal M, Shen YW, Ruslin M, Fuh LJ, Hsu JT. Evaluation of sagittal root position and labial alveolar bone concavity in the maxillary anterior tooth area for immediate implant placement. J Chin Med Assoc. 2023; 86(6): 565-70. https://doi.org/10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000929
  25. Wilson JP, Johnson TM. Frequency of adequate mesiodistal space and faciolingual alveolar width for implant placement at anterior tooth positions. J Am Dent Assoc. 2019; 150(9): 779-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2019.05.003
  26. Monje A, Chan HL, Fu JH, Suarez F, Galindo-Moreno P, Wang HL. Are short dental implants (<10 mm) effective? a meta-analysis on prospective clinical trials. J Periodontol. 2013; 84(7): 895-904. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2012.120328
  27. AlAli F, Atieh MA, Hannawi H, et al. Anterior maxillary labial bone thickness on cone beam computed tomography. Int Dent J. 2023; 73(2): 219-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2022.03.007
  28. Nowzari H, Molayem S, Chiu CHK, Rich SK. Cone beam computed tomographic measurement of maxillary central incisors to determine prevalence of facial alveolar bone width ≥2 mm. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 14(4): 595-602. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00287.x
  29. Tan WL, Wong TLT, Wong MCM, Lang NP. A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23(Suppl 5): 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02375.x
  30. Monje A, Roccuzzo A, Buser D, Wang HL. Influence of buccal bone wall thickness on the peri-implant hard and soft tissue dimensional changes: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023; 34(3): 157-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14029
  31. Spray JR, Black CG, Morris HF, Ochi S. The influence of bone thickness on facial marginal bone response: stage 1 placement through stage 2 uncovering. Ann Periodontol. 2000; 5(1): 119-28. https://doi.org/10.1902/annals.2000.5.1.119
  32. Xu D, Wang Z, Sun L, et al. Classification of the root position of the maxillary central incisors and its clinical significance in immediate implant placement. Implant Dent. 2016; 25(4): 520-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000438
  33. Lebon A, Cortasse B, Emonet-Denand V, Campan P, Galibourg A. Digital evaluation of the apical 3 mm portion of various implant designs on the surface area in contact with bone. Digital Dentistry Journal. 2025; 2(2): 100021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ddj.2025.100021
  34. Fenner M, Vairaktaris E, Fischer K, Schlegel KA, Neukam FW, Nkenke E. Influence of residual alveolar bone height on osseointegration of implants in the maxilla: a pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20(6): 555-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01598.x
  35. Chen ST, Buser D, Sculean A, Belser UC. Complications and treatment errors in implant positioning in the aesthetic zone: diagnosis and possible solutions. Periodontol 2000. 2023; 92(1): 220-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12474
  36. Han HS, Kim PJ, Kim KT, Kim S, Ku Y, Cho YD. Dental implant proximity to adjacent teeth: a retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2022; 24(6): 733-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13132
  37. Vela X, Méndez V, Rodríguez X, Segalá M, Tarnow DP. Crestal bone changes on platform-switched implants and adjacent teeth when the tooth-implant distance is less than 1.5 mm. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2012; 32(2): 149-55.
  38. López-Jarana P, Díaz-Castro CM, Falcão A, Falcão C, Ríos-Santos JV, Herrero-Climent M. Thickness of the buccal bone wall and root angulation in the maxilla and mandible: an approach to cone beam computed tomography. BMC Oral Health. 2018; 18(1): 194. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0652-x
  39. Lascala CA, Panella J, Marques MM. Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom). Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004; 33(5): 291-4. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/25500850