Evaluation of Lingual Concavity in the Posterior Mandible in Dental Implant Surgery: A Retrospective Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study

Year 2024, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 36 - 43, 29.04.2024

Resül Çolak , Burak Arda Önder

https://doi.org/10.21306/dishekimligi.1400359

Abstract

ABSTRACT
Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the prevalence of lingual concavity in edentulous areas in the posterior mandible and its occurrence according to the crest. In addition, it is aimed to determine the distance of the existing concavity from the crest and to separate the partitions of possible implant applications.
Material and Methods: 747 cross-sectional CBCT images of 150 patients, 78 men and 72 women, who met the inclusion criteria in the archives of Bülent Ecevit University Faculty of Dentistry, were examined. The presence of concavity in the premolar and molar regions was evaluated. The regions with concavity were examined and compared with each other by examining the more detailed features of the concavity and the crest types (P, C and U).
Results: The incidence of lingual concavity and U-type ridge is most observed in the 2nd molar region (49.5%). While the presence of concavity is less common in premolar teeth than molar teeth, in cases where concavity is present, the depth of concavity observed in premolar teeth is greater than molar teeth.
Conclusion: The results of this study reiterate the importance of evaluating the area where the implant will be applied with CBCT before the operation. The risk of perforation that may occur during or after implantation in the lower jaw is reduced to lower levels with 3D planning made via CBCT before the operation. The use of CBCT before surgery prevents nerve damage, etc., other than lingual perforation. It is also an important practice to prevent most complications that may occur before and after implant surgery.

Keywords

Concavity, dental implant, lingual perforation.

Dental İmplant Uygulamalarında Posterior Mandibulada Lingual Konkavite Varlığının İncelenmesi:Retrospektif Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi Çalışması

Abstract

ÖZ
Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı posterior mandibulada dişsiz sahaların lingual konkavite varlığının yaygınlığının ve kret tepesine göre pozisyonunun değerlendirilmesidir. Ayrıca mevcut konkavitenin kret tepesi ile olan mesafesinin belirlenmesinin olası implant uygulamalarında oluşabilecek komplikasyonlarının önlenmesi amaçlanmaktadır.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bülent Ecevit Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi arşivindeki dahil edilme kriterlerine uygun olan 78’i erkek 72’si kadın olmak üzere 150 hastanın 747 kesitsel KIBT görüntüsü incelendi. Premolar ve molar bölgedeki konkavite varlığı değerlendirildi. Konkavite görülen bölgeler ise konkavitenin daha detaylı özellikleri ve kret tipleri (P, C ve U) incelenerek birbirleri ile karşılaştırıldı.
Bulgular: Lingual konkavite ve U tipi kret görülme sıklığı en çok 2.molar bölgede (% 49.5) gözlemlenmektedir. Konkavite varlığı premolar dişlerde molar dişlere göre daha az görülürken, konkavitenin bulunduğu durumlarda premolar dişlerde gözlemlenen konkavite derinliği molar dişlerden daha fazladır.
Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın sonuçları implant uygulaması yapılacak bölgenin operasyon öncesinde KIBT ile değerlendirilmesinin önemini tekrar ortaya koymuştur. Alt çenede implantasyon sırasında veya sonrasında oluşabilecek perforasyon riski operasyon öncesi KIBT üzerinden yapılan 3 boyutlu planlamalar ile daha düşük seviyelere çekilmektedir. Cerrahi öncesi KIBT kullanımı lingual perforasyon dışında sinir hasarı vb. implant cerrahisi öncesi ve sonrasında oluşabilecek çoğu komplikasyonun önlenmesi için de önemli bir uygulamadır.

Keywords

konkavite, dental implant, lingual perforasyon

References

• 1. Ramaswamy P, Saikiran C, Raju BM, Swathi M, Teja DD. Evaluation of the depth of submandibular gland fossa and its correlation with mandibular canal in vertical and horizontal locations using CBCT. JIAOMR. 2020;32(1):22-6.
• 2. Kalpidis CD, Setayesh RM. Hemorrhaging associated with endosseous implant placement in the anterior mandible: a review of the literature. J Periodontol. 2004;75(5):631-45.
• 3.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(1):e32-e6.
• 4. Dubois L, De Lange J, Baas E, Van Ingen J. Excessive bleeding in the floor of the mouth after endosseus implant placement: a report of two cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;39(4):412-5.
• 5. Pelayo JL, Diago MP, Bowen EM, Diago MP. Intraoperative complications during oral implantology. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2008;13(4):239-43.
• 6. Philipsen H, Takata T, Reichart P, Sato S, Suei Y. Lingual and buccal mandibular bone depressions: a review based on 583 cases from a world-wide literature survey, including 69 new cases from Japan. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002;31(5):281-90.
• 7. Leong DJ-M, Chan H-L, Yeh C-Y, Takarakis N, Fu J-H, Wang H-L. Risk of lingual plate perforation during implant placement in the posterior mandible: a human cadaver study. Implant Dent. 2011;20(5):360-3.
• 8. Chan HL, Brooks SL, Fu JH, Yeh CY, Rudek I, Wang HL. Cross‐sectional analysis of the mandibular lingual concavity using cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(2):201-6.
• 9. Quirynen M, Mraiwa N, Van Steenberghe D, Jacobs R. Morphology and dimensions of the mandibular jaw bone in the interforaminal region in patients requiring implants in the distal areas. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14(3):280-5.
• 10. Chen LC, Lundgren T, Hallström H, Cherel F. Comparison of different methods of assessing alveolar ridge dimensions prior to dental implant placement. J Periodontol. 2008;79(3):401-5.
• 11. Nickenig H-J, Wichmann M, Eitner S, Zoeller JE, Kreppel M. Lingual concavities in the mandible: a morphological study using cross-sectional analysis determined by CBCT. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43(2):254-9.
• 12. Kaeppler G, Mast M. Indications for cone-beam computed tomography in the area of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Int J Comput Dent. 2012;15(4):271-86.
• 13. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(22):2277-84.
• 14. Harris D, Horner K, Gröndahl K, Jacobs R, Helmrot E, Benic GI, et al. EAO guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry 2011. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration at the Medical University of Warsaw. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(11):1243-53.
• 15. Gupta J, Ali SP. Cone beam computed tomography in oral implants. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2013;4(1):2-6.
• 16. Suomalainen A, Vehmas T, Kortesniemi M, Robinson S, Peltola J. Accuracy of linear measurements using dental cone beam and conventional multislice computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37(1):10-7.
• 17. Watanabe H, Mohammad Abdul M, Kurabayashi T, Aoki H. Mandible size and morphology determined with CT on a premise of dental implant operation. Surg Radiol Anat. 2010;32:343-9.
• 18. Kamburoğlu K, Acar B, Yüksel S, Paksoy CS. CBCT quantitative evaluation of mandibular lingual concavities in dental implant patients. Surg Radiol Anat. 2015;37:1209-15.
• 19. Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC. 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(6):817-26.
• 20. Horner K, O'Malley L, Taylor K, Glenny A-M. Guidelines for clinical use of CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(1):20140225.
• 21. Huang R-Y, Cochran DL, Cheng W-C, Lin M-H, Fan W-H, Sung C-E, 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(10):735-42.
• 22. Van Assche N, Van Steenberghe D, Guerrero M, Hirsch E, Schutyser F, Quirynen M, et al. Accuracy of implant placement based on pre‐surgical planning of three‐dimensional cone‐beam images: a pilot study. J Clin Periodontol. 2007;34(9):816-21.
• 23. Vela X, Méndez V, Rodríguez X, Segalà 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(2):149-55.
• 24. de Souza LA, Assis NMSP, Ribeiro RA, Carvalho ACP, Devito KL. Assessment of mandibular posterior regional landmarks using cone-beam computed tomography in dental implant surgery. Ann Anat. 2016;205:53-9.
• 25. Yoon TY, Patel M, Michaud RA, Manibo AM. Cone beam computerized tomography analysis of the posterior and anterior mandibular lingual concavity for dental implant patients. J Oral Implantol. 2017;43(1):12-8.
• 26. 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(1):129-35.
• 27. Kalpidis CD, Setayesh RM. Hemorrhaging associated with endosseous implant placement in the anterior mandible: a review of the literature. J Periodontol. 2004;75(5):631-45.
• 28. Kook Y-A, Nojima K, Moon H-B, McLaughlin RP, Sinclair PM. Comparison of arch forms between Korean and North American white populations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;126(6):680-6.
• 29. Grunder U, Gracis S, Capelli M. Influence of the 3-D bone-to-implant relationship on esthetics. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2005;25(2):113-9.