Assessment of the Spatial Relationship Between the Incisive Canal (IC) and Apical Region of the Maxillary Central Incisors in the Korean Population Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) for Implant Planning

Introduction: The aim of this study was to investigate the spatial relationship between the incisive canal (IC) and apical region of the maxillary central incisors in the Korean population, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging. The findings are intended to inform and improve the planning and execution of immediate implant placement in the maxillary esthetic zone. Materials and methods: CBCT data were collected from 94 patients (48 men, 46 women) aged 20–79 years at Gangnam Dental Clinic, Seoul, South Korea. The sample was divided according to age into three groups: 20–39 years, 40–59 years, and 60–79 years. Exclusion criteria included missing maxillary anterior teeth, severe crowding, periodontitis, pathology, and image artifacts. Measurements of the distance from the root apex to the incisive canal (RIC-11-P, RIC-21-P) and from the root apex to the buccal bone (RBB-11-B, RBB-21-B) were taken from CBCT images. Statistical analyses were conducted using Welch’s t-test, ANOVA, and Pearson correlation, with significance set at p < 0.05. Results: The mean distances from the root apex to the incisive canal were 3.77 mm (RIC-11-P) and 3.62 mm (RIC-21-P), while the mean distances to the buccal bone were 0.86 mm and 0.94 mm, respectively. Males exhibited significantly greater distances compared to females, both in the NPC-to-root apex and buccal bone measurements. Age-related variations were observed, with younger individuals showing shorter distances from the IC to the root apex. However, ANOVA tests and Pearson correlation analysis indicated no statistically significant correlation in these distances across different age groups. The study highlights significant gender differences in maxillary central incisor anatomy, with males having larger distances from the root apex to both the IC and buccal bone, which has implications for implant placement. While age-related changes were observed, they did not significantly affect the mean distances in a statistically meaningful way. Conclusions: These findings underscore the need for personalized treatment planning in immediate implant placement, particularly in relation to gender and age. Comparisons with other population studies suggest that these anatomical differences may be consistent across various ethnic groups, though individual variance factors should still be considered.