Interdental alveolar bone density in bruxers, mild bruxers, and non-bruxers affected by orthodontia and impaction as influencing factors.

  • Shereen Shokry Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Riyadh Colleges of Dentistry and Pharmacy, Riyadh.
  • Ghousia Rahman Department of Periodontology, Riyadh Colleges of Dentistry and Pharmacy, Riyadh.
  • Hossam Kandil Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo.
  • Hanan Hakeem Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Riyadh Military Hospital, Riyadh.
  • Nassr Al-Maflehi Department of Biostatistics, College of Dentistry, King Saud University. Riyadh.


Aim: To assess the interdental alveolar bone density within specific regions of interest in the mandible of bruxers, mild bruxers and non-bruxers in absence or presence of influencing factors, such as orthodontia and impaction. Materials and methods: The study consisted of 104 subjects (64 bruxers and 40 controls) from the female students in the Faculty of Dentistry. Students were classified into bruxers, non-bruxers, and mild bruxers. The presence of modifying factors, such as impacted mandibular third molars and/or current or recent orthodontic treatment were identified. Panoramic radiographs were obtained, and the mean bone density values of interdental alveolar bone were measured using ImageJ software. Results: Non-bruxers had the highest mean bone density in all measured regions. The mesial aspect of the second premolar was an area of higher mean bone density in bruxers and in mild bruxers, compared to non-bruxers. In the presence of orthodontic treatment, the mean bone density in non-bruxers surpassed that of bruxers and mild bruxers. Conclusion: Bruxism, whether mild or severe decreased the interdental mean bone density in the studied regions of interest. The presence of influencing factors affected the interdental mean bone density.


1. Consolaro A. Diagnosis of occlusal trauma: Extrapolations for peri-implant bone region can be done. Dental Press Implantol. 2012; 6(4): 22-37.
2. Özcan E, Sabuncuoglu FA. Radiological analysis of the relationship between occlusal tooth wear and mandibular alveolar bone density and height. Indian J Dent Res. 2013; 24(5): 555-61.
3. Shetty S, Pitti V, Babu CS, Kumar GS, Deepthi BC. Bruxism: A Literature Review. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2010; 10(3): 141–148.
4. Molina O, Santos Z, Simião BR, Marchezan RF, Silva N, Gama KR. A comprehensive method to classify subgroups of bruxers in temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) individuals: frequency, clinical and psychological implications. RSBO 2013; 10(1): 11-19.
5. Wang C, Fu G, Feng Deng F. Difference of natural teeth and implant-supported restoration: A comparison of bone remodeling simulations. J Dent Sci. 2015; 10(4): 190-200.
6. Rubo JH, Capello Souza EA. Finite-element analysis of stress on dental implant prosthesis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010; 12(2): 105-13.
7. D'Apuzzo F, Cappabianca S, Ciavarella D, Monsurrò A, Silvestrini-Biavati A, and Perillo L, Biomarkers of Periodontal Tissue Remodeling during Orthodontic Tooth Movement in Mice and Men: Overview and Clinical Relevance. Scientific World J. 2013; 13: 1-8.
8. Horner K, Devlin H. Clinical bone densitometric study of mandibular atrophy using dental panoramic tomography. J Dent. 1992; 20(1): 33-37.
9. Wall RT. The clues behind bruxism. RDH Mag. 2004; 24(9): 828-32.
10. Schierz O, John M, Schroeder E, Lobbezoo F. Association between anterior tooth wear and temporomandibular disorder pain in a German population. J Prosthet Dent. 2007; 97(5): 305-9.
11. Kinds MB, Bartels LW, Marijnissen AC, Vincken KL, Viergever MA, Lafeber FP, de Jong HW. Feasibility of bone density evaluation using plain digital radiography. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011; 19(11): 1343-8.
12. Suresh S, Kumar TS, Saraswathy PK, Pani Shankar KH. Periodontitis and bone mineral density among pre and post-menopausal women: a comparative study. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2010; 14(1): 30-4.
13. Sanz M. Occlusion in a periodontal context. Int J Prosthodont. 2005; 18(4): 309-10.
14. Khojastehpour L, Mogharrabi S, Dabbaghmanesh MS, Nasrabadi NI, Comparison of the mandibular bone densitometry measurements between normal, osteopenic and osteoporotic postmenopausal women. J Dent. (Tehran) 2013; 10(3): 203-9.
15. Ashwinirani SR, Girish Suragimath G, Jaishankar HP, Kulkarni P, Shobha C, Bijjaragi SC, Sangle VA. Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy of Conventional Intraoral Periapical and Direct Digital Radiographs in Detecting Interdental Bone Loss. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015; 9 (2): 35-38.
16. Chugh T, Ganeshkar SV, Revankar AV, Jain AK. Quantitative assessment of interradicular bone density in the maxilla and mandible: implications in clinical orthodontics. Prog Orthodont. 2013; 14(1): 38-45.
17. Ahathya R, Emmadi P, Nath G, Raja S. Treatment of an isolated furcation involved endodontically treated tooth - a case report. J Conserv Dent. 2007; 10 (4): 129-133.
18. Rossi AC, Freire AR, Prado FB, L, Asprino L, Correr-Sobrinho L, Caria PH. Photoelastic and Finite Element Analyses of Occlusal Loads in Mandibular Body. Anat Res Int. 2014; 14: 1-9.
How to Cite
SHOKRY, Shereen et al. Interdental alveolar bone density in bruxers, mild bruxers, and non-bruxers affected by orthodontia and impaction as influencing factors.. Journal of Oral Research, [S.l.], v. 4, n. 6, p. 378-386, nov. 2015. ISSN 0719-2479. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 28 feb. 2020. doi:


Bruxism; Bone density; Orthodontic treatment; Tooth impaction; Panoramic radiography.