Enamel thickness of maxillary canines evaluated with microcomputed tomography scans.

INTRODUCTION

Enameloplasty of maxillary canines is often needed for aesthetic substitution in patients with congenitally missing lateral incisors. The exact enamel thicknesses for the various canine surfaces are unknown because previous studies failed to employ accurate measurement tools to report and compare detailed enamel thicknesses for each surface at various crown heights.

METHODS

Thirty-two extracted maxillary canines were collected and scanned in a microcomputed tomography scanner. The scans were imported into a custom-written MATLAB software (version 9.2; MathWorks, Natick, Mass) and the enamel thickness on the mesial, distal, labial, fossa, cingulum, and incisal edge of each tooth was computed, obtaining the mean value from slices at 0.1 mm intervals. The overall mean enamel thickness for each surface was also calculated, and these values were compared using paired t tests. Incisal wear stage and incisal enamel thickness that was measured were compared using Spearman rank correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

The mean enamel thickness was significantly thinner at the gingival level when compared with the incisal for all surfaces that were analyzed (1-tailed, P <0.001). The mean enamel coverage at the mesial was significantly thinner than the distal when measured gingival to the widest mesiodistal area. The mean enamel coverage of the cingulum was particularly thin and therefore requires extreme care in reshaping it. Incisal edge enamel thickness was highly negatively correlated with the wear stage of the scoring system that was used (1-tailed, P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The enamel coverage of the maxillary canine varies depending on the tooth surface and the incisogingival measurement location.