Topographic analysis of the mandibular symphysis in a normal occlusion population using cone-beam computed tomography

  • Authors:
    • Ji‑Eun Lee
    • Yoon‑Jin Lee
    • Seong‑Ho Jin
    • Yoonji Kim
    • Yoon‑Ah Kook
    • Youngkyung Ko
    • Jun‑Beom Park
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: November 2, 2015     https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2015.2842
  • Pages: 2150-2156
Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

At present, the relationship between the morphological characteristics of the sympheseal region and occlusion has not been well documented. The aim of the present study was to investigate the following, using cone‑beam computed tomography (CBCT): Interforaminal distance, the anterior loop, labial bone thickness at the tooth apex, cortical bone thickness, and the basal bone height from the apex of the tooth to the base of the mandible. Three‑dimensional CBCT was performed on 20 normal occlusion subjects (9 males and 11 females; mean age=21.9±3.0 years); the mean interforaminal distance was 53.1±3.6 mm, with 85% of the participants demonstrating a mental foramen located below the second premolars on both sides. The mean anterior loop was 1.9±0.8 mm, the mean horizontal distance value was 4.5±1.3 mm, and the mean cortical bone thickness value was 2.3±0.5 mm. An increasing tendency for cortical bone thickness was seen from the central incisor to the second premolar. The mean vertical distance value was 20.3±3.1 mm. Decreasing tendency of vertical distance was seen from the central incisor to the second premolar. Furthermore, the width (mental foramina of both sides and their anterior loops), height (teeth apices and the inferior border of the mandible), depth (cortical bone thickness of the symphysis), and safety margins for vital anatomical structures (anterior loop, tooth apex, and inferior border of mandible) should be taken into account prior to symphyseal block‑bone harvesting. The results of the present study suggested that a pre‑operative evaluation with CBCT may be useful for diagnosis and treatment planning, and for minimizing complications during block-bone graft.

Introduction

Autogenous bone is considered the gold standard in bone grafting (1), and autogenous bone can be obtained from various donor sites, both intraoral and extraoral (2,3). Previous studies have demonstrated that there are various advantages to harvesting intramembranous bone grafts from intraoral sites, as compared with extraorally harvested endochondral bone grafts (47), including: Reduced reabsorption, enhanced revascularization (8), and improved incorporation at the donor site (4). As compared with other intraoral sites such as the tuberosity, zygoma, palate, and the coronoid process, the symphyseal region can provide a greater quantity of bone (9). Other advantages of symphyseal grafts include: Diminished postoperative morbidity; reduced or eliminated hospitalization, which, in turn, decreases cost; minimal postoperative discomfort; no alteration in ambulation; and the avoidance of a cutaneous scar (9). However, there are various complications associated with symphyseal bone grafts, including: Intraoperative bleeding, wound dehiscence, mental nerve injury, pulp canal obliteration, and a loss of pulp sensitivity in the anterior lower teeth (10,11).

During pre-operative evaluations for the diagnosis and treatment planning of symphyseal block-bone grafts, an understanding of the anatomical aspects of the safety zone is required in order to minimize complications during surgery. In spite of the necessity for data associated with the symphyseal safety zone, little research has been conducted to quantify the available symphyseal region. Furthermore, the relationship between the morphological characteristics of the sympheseal region and occlusion has not been well documented. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to assess the safety zone when harvesting symphyseal block bone, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Materials and methods

Participants

The data of 20 subjects (9 males and 11 females; mean age, 21.9±3.0 years) with normal occlusion were obtained from the Department of Orthodontics, The Catholic University of Korea (Seoul, Korea). The 20 subjects and the inclusion criteria were consistent with that of our previous study (12). Briefly, the criteria were: i) Periodontally healthy dentition; ii) normal occlusion; and iii) no previous orthodontic treatment. Normal occlusion was defined as i) Angle Class I occlusion; ii) fully developed permanent dentition with a normal overbite and 1–3 mm overjet; iii) no missing or decayed teeth; iv) no prosthetic crowns; v) crowding <3 mm and spacing <1 mm; and vi) no facial asymmetry with crossbite. The present study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of The Catholic University of Korea. A total of 10 teeth, from the left-lower secondary premolars to the right-lower secondary premolars, from all 20 subjects were included for measurements.

Image processing

Three-dimensional CBCT data were obtained using a VEGA (Asahi Roentgen Ind. Co., Ltd., Kyoto, Japan) with a 200×179 mm field of view, 80 kVp, and 50 mA, and 0.39 voxel resolution. CBCT data were exported into the Invivo Dental 5 program (Anatomage, San Jose, CA, USA) from iCAT (Imaging Sciences, Hatfield, PA, USA) software in the DICOM format.

Measurements

To assess the various factors associated with the safety zone when obtaining a symphyseal block-bone graft, the following measurements were obtained from 10 teeth of the 20 subjects, respectively (Fig. 1A and B): i) Interforaminal distance: The locations of the right and left mental foramen were investigated, along with the distance between the two most-mesial points of the mental foramina and the labial cortex of the mandible (Fig. 1A). ii) Anterior loop: The narrowest position of the mandibular canal-incisive canal complex was marked as the anterior border of the anterior loop, and the distance between the most mesial point of the mental foramina and the anterior border of the anterior loop was measured. iii) Thickness of the labial bone: On each cross-sectional image (Fig. 1B) the distance between the tooth apex and the labial surface of the mandible was measured in the best direction for optimal teeth condition, as stated above. iv) Cortical bone thickness: The thickness of the labial cortex bone of the mandible was measured (Fig. 1B). v) Mandible bone height: The height of the mandible from the apex of the tooth to the inferior border of the mandible, was measured (Fig. 1B).

To generate the best resection direction for all 10 teeth, the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes were adjusted to the perpendicular section of each tooth. The axial plane of each tooth consisted of the cusp tip and the apex. The interforaminal distance was measured from all 20 participants, and the horizontal distance, cortical bone thickness, and vertical distance of 200 teeth (10 teeth from each of the 20 subjects) were measured. Image measurements were performed by an independent examiner.

Statistical analysis

The statistical significance of differences in interforaminal distance, horizontal distance, cortical bone thickness, and vertical distance were analyzed between teeth, left- and right-side measurements, and, males and females using SPSS software (version 12.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.

Results

Vertical distance, horizontal distance, interforaminal distance and anterior loop

Measured as described, the mean interforaminal distance was 53.1±3.6 mm and the mean anterior loop was 1.9±0.8 mm (Table I), whereas the mean thickness of the labial bone was 4.5±1.3 mm (Table I). The horizontal distance values for the central incisor, lateral incisor, canine, first premolar, and second premolar were 3.7±1.1, 3.8±0.8, 4.3±1.0, 4.7±1.0, and 5.9±1.2 mm, respectively (Table II and Fig. 2A).

Table I.

Vertical distance, horizontal distance, cortical bone thickness, interformaminal distance and anterior loop (mm).

Table I.

Vertical distance, horizontal distance, cortical bone thickness, interformaminal distance and anterior loop (mm).

ParameterMeanMedianMaximumMinimumStandard deviation
Vertical distance20.320.246.812.03.1
Horizontal distance  4.5  4.4  9.3  1.81.3
Cortical bone thickness  2.3  2.2  4.0  1.10.5
Interforaminal distance53.153.359.346.83.6
Anterior loop  1.9  1.9  3.3  0.00.8

Table II.

Vertical distance, horizontal distance, and cortical bone thickness (mm) of various teeth.

Table II.

Vertical distance, horizontal distance, and cortical bone thickness (mm) of various teeth.

Tooth parametersMeanMedianMaximumMinimumStandard deviation
Central incisor
  Vertical distance22.122.026.117.23.1
  Horizontal distance   3.7a,b  3.5  7.5  1.81.1
  Cortical bone thickness   1.8a  1.7  2.7  1.20.4
  Tooth dimension  4.9  4.9  7.1  3.90.6a,b,d
Lateral incisor
  Vertical distance20.821.023.917.71.7
  Horizontal distance   3.8a,b  3.7  5.6  2.00.8
  Cortical bone thickness  2.0  2.0  2.8  1.10.4
  Tooth dimension  5.4  5.4  6.9  4.50.6ac
Canine
  Vertical distance20.319.946.814.94.7
  Horizontal distance   4.3c,d   4.3   6.3   2.71.0
  Cortical bone thickness   2.3   2.3   3.1   1.50.3
  Tooth dimension   6.8   6.8   9.2   4.90.9c,d
First premolar
  Vertical distance19.820.225.714.92.4c,d
  Horizontal distance   4.7c,d   4.7   6.3   1.81.0
  Cortical bone thickness   2.5   2.4   3.7   1.50.5
  Tooth dimension   6.3   6.3   8.1   4.90.7
Second premolar
  Vertical distance18.5ad19.124.412.02.7
  Horizontal distance   5.9ad   6.0   9.3   3.31.2
  Cortical bone thickness   2.9c,d   2.9   4.0   2.00.4
  Tooth dimension   6.3   6.2   7.9   3.01.0c,d

a P<0.05 vs. canine;

b P<0.05 vs. first premolar;

c P<0.05 vs. central incisor;

d P<0.05 vs. lateral incisor.

Cortical bone thickness

The mean cortical bone thickness value was 2.3±0.5 mm (Table I); whereas the values for the central incisor, lateral incisor, canine, first premolar, and second premolar were 1.8±0.4, 2.0±0.4, 2.3±0.3, 2.5±0.5, and 2.9±0.4 mm, respectively (Table II and Fig. 2B). Cortical bone thickness increased from the central incisor to the second premolar, and the mean height of the basal bone was 20.3±3.1 mm (Table I). The values for the central incisor, lateral incisor, canine, first premolar, and second premolar were 22.1±3.1, 20.8±1.7, 20.3±4.7, 19.8±2.4, and 18.5± 2.7 mm, respectively (Table II and Fig. 2C). Basal bone height decreased towards the second premolar.

Topological classification and gender differences

No significant differences were determined between the horizontal distance, cortical bone thickness, and vertical distance measurements on the left- and right-hand sides; with the exception of the cortical bone thickness values at the second premolar (right, 3.0±0.4 mm; left, 2.7±0.4 mm; P=0.049) and the anterior loop (right, 1.7±0.9; left, 2.1±0.7; P<0.001) (Table III and IV, and Figs. 3A–C). No significant differences between male and female subjects were determined between the labial bone thickness, cortical bone thickness, and basal bone height measurements (Table V and Figs. 4A–C). However, the interforaminal distance and the anterior loop were longer in males, as compared with females (Table IV and Fig. 4D; P< 0.05). These results suggest that there may be more available space for sympheseal block-bone grafts in males, as compared with in females.

Table III.

Topological classification of the vertical distance, horizontal distance and cortial bone thickness of various teeth.

Table III.

Topological classification of the vertical distance, horizontal distance and cortial bone thickness of various teeth.

Tooth and topologyVertical distance (mm)Horizontal distance (mm)Cortical bone thickness (mm)Tooth dimension (mm)
Central incisor
  Right22.2±2.13.7±1.31.8±0.45.0±0.7
  Left22.0±2.23.7±1.01.7±0.34.9±0.5
  P-value0.7790.6020.4450.801
Lateral incisor
  Right21.2±1.63.9±0.91.9±0.55.4±0.5
  Left20.4±1.83.8±0.82.1±0.35.5±0.6
  P-value0.1350.8340.2210.527
Canine
  Right19.9±1.84.4±1.12.4±0.46.8±0.9
  Left20.7±6.54.3±0.92.3±0.26.8±0.9
  P-value0.7180.9680.5290.963
First premolar
  Right19.6±2.24.8±1.02.6±0.56.2±0.7
  Left20.1±2.64.5±1.12.3±0.46.4±0.8
  P-value0.4950.3000.0900.541
Second premolar
  Right18.5±2.46.1±1.43.0±0.46.3±1.2
  Left18.6±3.05.6±1.02.7±0.46.3±0.7
  P-value1.0000.2010.0490.895

Table IV.

Classification of anterior loop by topology and gender, and interforaminal distance by gender.

Table IV.

Classification of anterior loop by topology and gender, and interforaminal distance by gender.

ParameterTopologyGenderValue (mm)P-value
Anterior loopRight1.7±0.9
Left2.1±0.7<0.001
Male2.3±0.6
Female1.6±0.80.007
Interforaminal distanceMale55.0±3.9
Female51.6±2.50.028

Table V.

Classification of the vertical distance, horizontal distance and cortial bone thickness of various teeth by gender.

Table V.

Classification of the vertical distance, horizontal distance and cortial bone thickness of various teeth by gender.

Tooth and genderVertical distance (mm)Horizontal distance (mm)Cortical bone thickness (mm)Tooth dimension (mm)
Central incisor
  Male22.8±2.03.6±0.81.9±0.45.0±0.6
  Female21.5±2.13.8±1.41.7±0.34.9±0.6
  P-value0.0890.7780.3960.307
Lateral incisor
  Male21.3±1.53.9±0.62.2±0.45.6±0.6
  Female20.5±1.83.8±1.01.9±0.35.3±0.5
  P-value0.1460.5290.0080.161
Canine
  Male21.2±6.84.7±1.02.5±0.27.3±0.9
  Female19.5±1.84.1±0.92.2±0.46.4±0.6
  P-value0.4920.1060.0070.001
First premolar
  Male19.9±2.55.2±1.02.7±0.46.4±0.9
  Female19.8±2.44.2±0.92.3±0.46.3±0.6
  P-value0.8610.0010.0200.625
Second premolar
  Male18.2±2.85.9±1.23.0±0.36.7±0.9
  Female18.8±2.65.8±1.32.8±0.56.0±1.0
  P-value0.4880.6830.3970.039

Discussion

Width, height, and depth values are required for the safe harvesting of symphyseal block bone, without invading vital anatomical structures. The present study used CBCT to provide values for the safe harvesting of bone from the symphysis area.

It is necessary to measure the interforaminal distance when investigating the width of block-bone harvesting, in order to avoid injury to the surrounding tissue (13). A previous study demonstrated that the mean interforaminal distance was 49.5 mm, from 42 cadaver samples (14); whereas another study, which analyzed 22 Caucasian skulls, demonstrated a mean interforaminal distance of 55.2 mm (15). In the present study, the mean interforaminal distance was 53.1±3.6 mm, as measured using a three-dimensional analysis program.

As the extension of the inferior alveolar nerve beyond the mental foramen (16), the anterior loop is readily identifiable in most patients; and as it contains the entire neurovascular bundle, anterior loop injuries may result in sensory disturbances (17). In a previous study, the anterior loop was detected at a frequency of 31% using CBCT, with an average size of 1.4 mm and a maximum of 4.6 mm (17). Previous studies have suggested that osteotomy should be conducted at least 1 (18), 2 (19), 3 (20), 4 (21), 5 (22), or 6 (23) mm anteriorly apart from the mental foramen. As the mean interforaminal distance in this study was 53.1 mm, the available safe width of the symphyseal block-bone harvesting was <45.1 mm, which was calculated by subtracting the mean length of the bilateral anterior loops, 10 mm (22), from the mean interforaminal distance.

To investigate the height of block-bone harvesting, the height from the basal bone to the apex of the tooth was measured. To avoid injuries to the teeth and the mandible, surgeons must be aware of the safety margin. Previous studies have suggested a safety zone of 5–8 mm from the apex of the tooth to the inferior mandibular border (2426); therefore, in the present study the average available bone height would be 10.3 mm, as 10 mm is subtracted from the mean height (20.3 mm).

Depth cuts may be performed in order to determine the thickness of the cortical plate and to minimize cancellous bone harvesting; however, the avoidance of deep cutting is highly recommended in order to decrease the possibility of postoperative paresthesia (24). In the present study, the mean horizontal distance and cortical bone thickness values were 4.5 mm and 2.3 mm, respectively. However, as these values increased distally this may suggest more autogenous bone can be harvested from a more-distal region.

In the present study, no significant differences were determined between the left- and right-hand sides; however. some gender differences were noted between male and female subjects. In previous studies, the interforaminal distance, anterior loop, horizontal distance, cortical bone thickness, and vertical distance values were increased in male subjects, as compared with female subjects (2729). Thus suggesting that increased care should be taken to determine what block-bone depth is required in female patients.

The present study evaluated the interforaminal distance, anterior loop, cortical bone thickness, the depth from the tooth apex to the labial cortical bone and the height between the inferior mandibular border, and the apex of the tooth measurements in normal occlusion subjects, with gender and topological differences analyzed. The results of the present study suggest that the following should be taken into account prior to symphyseal block-bone harvesting: Width (mental foramina of both sides and their anterior loops), height (teeth apices and the inferior border of the mandible), depth (cortical bone thickness of the symphysis), and safety margins for vital anatomical structures (anterior loop, tooth apex, and inferior border of mandible). Furthermore, in order to minimize any complications that may occur during a block-bone graft, a pre-operative evaluation with CBCT may be useful for patient diagnosis and treatment planning.

Acknowledgements

Parts of this paper were presented as a poster at the 23rd Annual Scientific Meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration. The present study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (grant no. NRF-2014R1A1A1003106).

References

1 

Rogers GF and Greene AK: Autogenous bone graft: Basic science and clinical implications. J Craniofac Surg. 23:323–327. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

2 

Misch CM: Comparison of intraoral donor sites for onlay grafting prior to implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 12:767–776. 1997.PubMed/NCBI

3 

Clavero J and Lundgren S: Ramus or chin grafts for maxillary sinus inlay and local onlay augmentation: Comparison of donor site morbidity and complications. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 5:154–160. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

4 

Borstlap WA, Heidbuchel KL, Freihofer HP and Kuijpers-Jagtman AM: Early secondary bone grafting of alveolar cleft defects. A comparison between chin and rib grafts. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 18:201–205. 1990. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

5 

Lin KY, Bartlett SP, Yaremchuk MJ, Fallon M, Grossman RF and Whitaker LA: The effect of rigid fixation on the survival of onlay bone grafts: An experimental study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 86:449–456. 1990. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

6 

Smith JD and Abramson M: Membranous vs endochondrial bone autografts. Arch Otolaryngol. 99:203–205. 1974. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

7 

Zins JE and Whitaker LA: Membranous versus endochondral bone: Implications for craniofacial reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 72:778–785. 1983. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

8 

Kusiak JF, Zins JE and Whitaker LA: The early revascularization of membranous bone. Plast Reconstr Surg. 76:510–516. 1985. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

9 

Misch CM, Misch CE, Resnik RR and Ismail YH: Reconstruction of maxillary alveolar defects with mandibular symphysis grafts for dental implants: A preliminary procedural report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 7:360–366. 1992.PubMed/NCBI

10 

Nóia CF, Ortega-Lopes R, Olate S, Duque TM, de Moraes M and Mazzonetto R: Prospective clinical assessment of morbidity after chin bone harvest. J Craniofac Surg. 22:2195–2198. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

11 

Raghoebar GM, Louwerse C, Kalk WW and Vissink A: Morbidity of chin bone harvesting. Clin Oral Implants Res. 12:503–507. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

12 

Jin SH, Park JB, Kim N, Park S, Kim KJ, Kim Y, Kook YA and Ko Y: The thickness of alveolar bone at the maxillary canine and premolar teeth in normal occlusion. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 42:173–178. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

13 

Al-Ani O, Nambiar P, Ha KO and Ngeow WC: Safe zone for bone harvesting from the interforaminal region of the mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res. 24(Suppl A100): 115–121. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

14 

Denissen HW, Kalk W, Veldhuis HA and van Waas MA: Anatomic consideration for preventive implantation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 8:191–196. 1993.PubMed/NCBI

15 

Neiva RF, Gapski R and Wang HL: Morphometric analysis of implant-related anatomy in Caucasian skulls. J Periodontol. 75:1061–1067. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

16 

Arzouman MJ, Otis L, Kipnis V and Levine D: Observations of the anterior loop of the inferior alveolar canal. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 8:295–300. 1993.PubMed/NCBI

17 

Ritter L, Neugebauer J, Mischkowski RA, Dreiseidler T, Rothamel D, Richter U, Zinser MJ and Zoller JE: Evaluation of the course of the inferior alveolar nerve in the mental foramen by cone beam computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 27:1014–1021. 2012.PubMed/NCBI

18 

Bavitz JB, Harn SD, Hansen CA and Lang M: An anatomical study of mental neurovascular bundle-implant relationships. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 8:563–567. 1993.PubMed/NCBI

19 

Misch C: Root form surgery in the edentulous anterior and posterior mandible: Implant insertion. Contemporary Implant Dentistry (Third). (St. Louis, MO). Mosby Elsevier. 221–226. 2008.

20 

Mardinger O, Chaushu G, Arensburg B, Taicher S and Kaffe I: Anterior loop of the mental canal: An anatomical-radiologic study. Implant Dent. 9:120–125. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

21 

Kuzmanovic DV, Payne AG, Kieser JA and Dias GJ: Anterior loop of the mental nerve: A morphological and radiographic study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 14:464–471. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

22 

Greenstein G and Tarnow D: The mental foramen and nerve: Clinical and anatomical factors related to dental implant placement: A literature review. J Periodontol. 77:1933–1943. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

23 

Solar P, Ulm C, Frey G and Matejka M: A classification of the intraosseous paths of the mental nerve. Int J Maxillofac Implants. 9:339–344. 1994.

24 

Hunt DR and Jovanovic SA: Autogenous bone harvesting: A chin graft technique for particulate and monocortical bone blocks. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 19:165–173. 1999.PubMed/NCBI

25 

Pommer B, Tepper G, Gahleitner A, Zechner W and Watzek G: New safety margins for chin bone harvesting based on the course of the mandibular incisive canal in CT. Clin Oral Implants Res. 19:1312–1316. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

26 

Montazem A, Valauri DV, St-Hilaire H and Buchbinder D: The mandibular symphysis as a donor site in maxillofacial bone grafting: A quantitative anatomic study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 58:1368–1371. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

27 

Garvin HM and Ruff CB: Sexual dimorphism in skeletal browridge and chin morphologies determined using a new quantitative method. Am J Phys Anthropol. 147:661–670. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

28 

Wang Q, Ashley DW and Dechow PC: Regional, ontogenetic, and sex-related variations in elastic properties of cortical bone in baboon mandibles. Am J Phys Anthropol. 141:526–549. 2010.PubMed/NCBI

29 

Lee KA, Kim MS, Hong JY, Lee JS, Choi SH, Chai JK and Jung UW: Anatomical topography of the mandibular symphysis in the Korean population: A computed tomography analysis. Clin Anat. 27:592–597. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

Related Articles

Journal Cover

December-2015
Volume 10 Issue 6

Print ISSN: 1792-0981
Online ISSN:1792-1015

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Lee JE, Lee YJ, Jin SH, Kim Y, Kook YA, Ko Y and Park JB: Topographic analysis of the mandibular symphysis in a normal occlusion population using cone-beam computed tomography. Exp Ther Med 10: 2150-2156, 2015
APA
Lee, J., Lee, Y., Jin, S., Kim, Y., Kook, Y., Ko, Y., & Park, J. (2015). Topographic analysis of the mandibular symphysis in a normal occlusion population using cone-beam computed tomography. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, 10, 2150-2156. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2015.2842
MLA
Lee, J., Lee, Y., Jin, S., Kim, Y., Kook, Y., Ko, Y., Park, J."Topographic analysis of the mandibular symphysis in a normal occlusion population using cone-beam computed tomography". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 10.6 (2015): 2150-2156.
Chicago
Lee, J., Lee, Y., Jin, S., Kim, Y., Kook, Y., Ko, Y., Park, J."Topographic analysis of the mandibular symphysis in a normal occlusion population using cone-beam computed tomography". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 10, no. 6 (2015): 2150-2156. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2015.2842