Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Positioning errors of dental implants and their associations with adjacent structures and anatomical variations: A CBCT-based study

  • Received : 2020.04.16
  • Accepted : 2020.07.21
  • Published : 2020.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the prevalence of dental implants positioning errors and their associations with adjacent structures and anatomical variations by means of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: CBCT images of 207 patients (584 dental implants) were evaluated by 2 oral radiologists. The distance between the implant and the adjacent teeth/implants was measured and classified as adequate (≥1.5 mm and ≥3 mm, respectively) or inadequate. The presence of thread exposure, cortical perforation, implant dehiscence, implant penetration into adjacent structures, and anatomical variations was also recorded. The incisor canal diameter and the depth of the concavity of the submandibular fossa were measured in order to evaluate their correlations with the frequency of implant penetration in these structures. Descriptive analyses, the Fisher exact test, and Spearman correlation analysis were performed (α=0.05). Results: The overall prevalence of positioning errors was 82.9%. The most common error was the inadequate distance between the implant and the adjacent teeth/implants. The presence of anatomical variations did not significantly influence the overall prevalence of errors (P>0.05). There was a positive correlation between the diameter of the incisor canal and the frequency of implant penetration in this structure (r=0.232, P<0.05). Conclusion: There was a high prevalence of dental implant positioning errors, and positioning errors were not associated with the presence of anatomical variations. Professionals should be aware of the space available for implant placement during the preoperative planning stage.

Keywords

References

  1. Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC, et al. Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012; 113: 817-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2012.03.005
  2. Clark D, Barbu H, Lorean A, Mijiritsky E, Levin L. Incidental findings of implant complications on postimplantation CBCTs: a cross-sectional study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017; 19: 776-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12511
  3. Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M, Hassan B, Bornstein MM. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health 2018; 18: 88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0523-5
  4. Gaeta-Araujo H, Oliveira-Santos N, Mancini AX, Oliveira ML, Oliveira-Santos C. Retrospective assessment of dental implant-related perforations of relevant anatomical structures and inadequate spacing between implants/teeth using conebeam computed tomography. Clin Oral Investig 2020; 24: 3281-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03205-8
  5. Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS. The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol 2000; 71: 546-9. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2000.71.4.546
  6. Silva JA, de Alencar AH, da Rocha SS, Lopes LG, Estrela C. Three-dimensional image contribution for evaluation of operative procedural errors in endodontic therapy and dental implants. Braz Dent J 2012; 23: 127-34. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402012000200007
  7. Silva JA, de Alencar AH, da Rocha SS, Lopes LG, Estrela C. Three-dimensional image contribution for evaluation of operative procedural errors in endodontic therapy and dental implants. Braz Dent J 2012; 23: 127-34. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402012000200007
  8. de-Azevedo-Vaz SL, Vasconcelos Kde F, Neves FS, Melo SL, Campos PS, Haiter-Neto F. Detection of periimplant fenestration and dehiscence with the use of two scan modes and the smallest voxel sizes of a cone-beam computed tomography device. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013; 115: 121-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2012.10.003
  9. do Nascimento EH, Dos Anjos Pontual ML, Dos Anjos Pontual A, da Cruz Perez DE, Figueiroa JN, Frazao MA, et al. Assessment of the anterior loop of the mandibular canal: a study using cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent 2016; 46: 69-75. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2016.46.2.69
  10. de Oliveira-Santos C, Rubira-Bullen IR, Monteiro SA, Leon JE, Jacobs R. Neurovascular anatomical variations in the anterior palate observed on CBCT images. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 1044-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02497.x
  11. Parnia F, Fard EM, Mahboub F, Hafezeqoran A, Gavgani FE. Tomographic volume evaluation of submandibular fossa in patients requiring dental implants. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 109: e32-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.08.035
  12. Nascimento EH, Oliveira ML, Freitas DQ. Incidental findings of implant complications on postimplantation CBCTs: a cross-sectional study - methodological issues. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019; 21: 11-2. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12690
  13. 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: 779-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2019.05.003
  14. Camargo IB, Van Sickels JE. Surgical complications after implant placement. Dent Clin North Am 2015; 59: 57-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2014.08.003
  15. Scarano A, Assenza B, Piattelli M, Thams U, San Roman F, Favero GA, et al. Interimplant distance and crestal bone resorption: a histologic study in the canine mandible. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2004; 6: 150-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2004.tb00215.x
  16. Vela X, Méndez V, Rodriguez 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: 149-55.
  17. Gupta S, Sabharwal R, Nazeer J, Taneja L, Choudhury BK, Sahu S. Platform switching technique and crestal bone loss around the dental implants: a systematic review. Ann Afr Med 2019; 18: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.4103/aam.aam_15_18
  18. Chan HL, Benavides E, Yeh CY, Fu JH, Rudek IE, Wang HL. Risk assessment of lingual plate perforation in posterior mandibular region: a virtual implant placement study using cone-beam computed tomography. J Periodontol 2011; 82: 129-35. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2010.100313
  19. Huang RY, Cochran DL, Cheng WC, Lin MH, Fan WH, Sung CE, et al. Risk of lingual plate perforation for virtual immediate implant placement in the posterior mandible: a computer simulation study. J Am Dent Assoc 2015; 146: 735-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2015.04.027
  20. Lin MH, Mau LP, Cochran DL, Shieh YS, Huang PH, Huang RY. Risk assessment of inferior alveolar nerve injury for immediate implant placement in the posterior mandible: a virtual implant placement study. J Dent 2014; 42: 263-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.12.014
  21. de Mello JS, Faot F, Correa G, Chagas Júnior OL. Success rate and complications associated with dental implants in the incisive canal region: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 46: 1584-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.05.002
  22. Mahale KM, Yeshwante BJ, Baig N, Darakh PG. Iatrogenic complications of implants surgery. J Dent Implant 2013; 3: 157-9. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-6781.118857
  23. Juodzbalys G, Wang HL, Sabalys G. Injury of the inferior alveolar nerve during implant placement: a literature review. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2011; 2: e1.
  24. Bornstein MM, Scarfe WC, Vaughn VM, Jacobs R. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 Suppl: 55-77. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.4
  25. Bohner LO, Mukai E, Oderich E, Porporatti AL, Pacheco-Pereira C, Tortamano P, et al. Comparative analysis of imaging techniques for diagnostic accuracy of peri-implant bone defects: a meta-analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2017; 124: 432-40.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2017.06.119
  26. Oztel M, Bilski WM, Bilski A. Risk factors associated with dental implant failure: a study of 302 implants placed in a regional center. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017; 18: 705-9. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2111
  27. Hickin MP, Shariff JA, Jennette PJ, Finkelstein J, Papapanou PN. Incidence and determinants of dental implant failure: a review of electronic health records in a U.S. dental school. J Dent Educ 2017; 81: 1233-42. https://doi.org/10.21815/jde.017.080
  28. Jemt T. Implant failures and age at the time of surgery: a retrospective study on implant treatment in 2915 partially edentulous jaws. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019; 21: 686-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12812

Cited by

  1. Long term clinical result of implant induced injury on the adjacent tooth vol.11, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87062-9