Prosthetically driven immediate implant placement at lower molar area; an anatomical study

Abstract

Purpose To examine the effectiveness and safety of immediate implant placement (IIP), we evaluated the risk of lingual plate perforation (LPP) and mandibular canal perforation (MCP) associated with posterior mandible anatomy using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Materials and Methods A morphological study of the molar sockets of 135 patients (age: 18–84 y) was done and its relationship to the mandibular canal was investigated. The risk of LPP and MCP was recorded as yes or no. Mandibular cross-sectional morphology was defined as one of three types (U-P-C) using the criteria of Chan et al. Results The risk of LPP was significantly higher for second molars (p = 0.0001), and the risk increased with age (p = 0.039). There was a strong relationship between the risk of LPP and cross-section type U (p = 0.0001). The mean root to alveolar canal (RAC) distance (mm) of males was significantly higher than that of females. The mean RAC value was 5.02 mm for males and 3.49 mm for females. There was no statistically significant relationship between the risk of MCP and sex. There was a significant relationship between the risk of MCP and cross-section type U (p = 0.0001). Although the MCP risk was higher in second molars, there was no statistically meaningful relation between MCP and tooth type. Conclusion The results suggest that IIP in the mandibular molar area carries a high risk of MCP and LPP. Based on the elevated level of risk, a delayed implant protocol should be considered.

Keywords

• CBCT
• immediate implant
• mandibular canal
• lingual plate perforation
• mandible

References

1. 1. Ak G, Sepet E, Pinar A, Aren G, Turan N. Reasons for early loss of primary molars. Oral Health Prev Dent 2005;3:113-7.
2. 2. Alexander SA, Askari M, Lewis P. The premature loss of primary first molars: space loss to molar occlusal relationships and facial patterns. Angle Orthod 2015;85:218-23. [CrossRef]
3. 3. Schulte W, Kleineikenscheidt H, Lindner K & Schareyka R. The Tubingen immediate implant in clinical studies. Deutsche Zahnarztliche Zeitschrift 1978;33:348-59.
4. 4. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Polyzos IP, Felice P, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate-delayed and delayed implants). Australian Dental Journal 2011;56:100-2. [CrossRef]
5. 5. Chiapasco M, Casentini P. Horizontal bone-augmentation procedures in implant dentistry: prosthetically guided regeneration. Periodontol 2000 2018;77(1):213-40. [CrossRef]
6. 6. Aksoy U, Orhan K. Risk Factor in Endodontic Treatment: Topographic Evaluation of Mandibular Posterior Teeth and Lingual Cortical Plate Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CT). Med Sci Monit 2018;24:7508-16. [CrossRef]
7. 7. Ozturk CN, Ozturk C, Bozkurt M, Uygur HS, Papay FA, Zins JE. Dentition, bone loss, and the aging of the mandible. Aesthet Surg J 2013;1;33(7):967-74. [CrossRef]
8. 8. Vallabh R, Zhang J, Fernandez J, Dimitroulis G, Ackland DC. The morphology of the human mandible: A computational modelling study. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2019 Mar 2. (Epub ahead of print) [CrossRef]

9. 9. Misch CE, Resnik R. Mandibular nerveneurosensory impairment after dental implant surgery: management and protocol. Implant Dentistry 2010;19:378-86. [CrossRef]
10. 10. Renton T, Janjua H, Gallagher JE, Dalgleish M, Yilmaz Z. UK dentists' experience of iatrogenic trigeminal nerve injuries in relation to routine dental procedures: why, when and how often? Br Dent J 2013;214(12):633-42. [CrossRef]
11. 11. 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. Journal of Periodontology 2011;82:12935. [CrossRef]
12. 12. Gonz.lez-Garc.a R, Monje F. The reliability of cone-beam computed tomography to assess bone density at dental implant recipient sites: a histomorphometric analysis by micro-CT. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:871-9. [CrossRef]
13. 13. Salimov F, Tatli U, Kürkçü M, Akoğlan M, Oztun. H, Kurtoğlu C. Evaluation of relationship between preoperative bone density values derived from cone beam computed tomography and implant stability parameters: a clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:1016-21. [CrossRef]
14. 14. 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. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2011;22:201-6. [CrossRef]
15. 15. Froum S, Casanova L, Byrne S, Cho SC. Risk assessment before extraction for immediate implant placement in the posterior mandible: a computerized tomographic scan study. Journal of Periodontology 2011;82:395-402. [CrossRef]
16. 16. Misch CE. Root form surgery in the edentulous mandible: Stage I implant insertion. In: Misch CE, ed. Implant Dentistry, 2nd ed. St. Louis: The CV Mosby Company; 1999;347-37:
17. 17. Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindström J, Hallén O, Ohman A. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl 1977;16:1-132.
18. 18. Podaropoulos L. Increasing the Stability of Dental Implants: the Concept of Osseodensification. Balkan Journal of Dental Medicine 2017;21:133-40. [CrossRef]
19. 19. Hong DGK, Oh JH. Recent advances in dental implants. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;39(1):33. [CrossRef] 20. Chen ST, Darby IB, Reynolds EC, Clement JG. Immediate implant placement postextraction without flap elevation. J Periodontol 2009;80:163-72. [CrossRef]
20. 21. Rosenquist B, Grenthe B. Immediate placement of implants into extraction sockets: Implant survival. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:205-9. [CrossRef]
21. 22. Grunder U, Polizzi G, Goene' R, et al. A 3-year prospective multicenter follow-up report on the immediate and delayedimmediate placement of implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:210-6.
22. 23. Wagenberg B, Froum SJ. A retrospective study of 1925 consecutively placed immediate implants from 1988 to 2004. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:71-80.
23. 24. Brunski JB. Biomechanics of oral implants: Future research directions. J Dent Educ 1988;52:775-87.
24. 25. Branemark PI, Zarb G, Albrektsson T. Tissue Integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985:11-76.
25. 26. Ming-Hung Lin, Lian-Ping Maub, David L. Cochran, Yi-Shing Shieh, Po-Hsien Huang, Ren-Yeong Huang. Risk assessment of inferior alveolar nerve injury for immediate implant placement in the posterior mandible: A virtual implant placement study. J Dent 2014;42(3):263-70. [CrossRef]
26. 27. Yu DC, Friedland BD, Karimbux NY, Guze KA. Supramandibular canal portion superior to the fossa of the submaxillary gland: a tomographic evaluation of the cross-sectional dimension in the molar region. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2012;15:750-8. [CrossRef]
27. 28. 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(4):343-9. [CrossRef]
28. 29. Atieh MA, Zadeh H, Stanford CM, Cooper LF. Survival of short dental implants for treatment of posterior partial edentulism: A systematic review. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 2012;27:1323-31.
29. 30. Fan T, Li Y, Deng WW, Wu T, Zhang W. Short im‐plants (5 to 8 mm) versus longer implants (>8 mm) with sinus lift‐ing in atrophic posterior maxilla: A meta‐analysis of RCTs. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2017;19:207-15. [CrossRef]