Dental implantlardaki komplikasyonların konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi ile retrospektif olarak değerlendirilmesi

Year 2021, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 367 - 371, 31.08.2021

Umut Pamukçu , Nebiha Gözde İspir , Meryem Toraman Alkurt , Bülent Altunkaynak , İlkay Peker

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.660221

Abstract

Amaç: Dental implantlar günümüzde kısmi ve tam dişsiz çenelerin rehabilitasyonu için yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, dental implantı mevcut hastaların konik-ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) görüntülerinde belirlenen komplikasyonlarının tiplerini ve yaygınlığını değerlendirmektir.
Gereç ve yöntemler: Radyoloji kliniğinde çeşitli dental nedenlerden dolayı elde edilmiş 1025 hastaya ait KIBT görüntüsü kesitsel olarak tarandı; bunların içinde dental implant tespit edilen 103 görüntü komplikasyon varlığı/yokluğu açısından retrospektif olarak incelendi. Komplikasyonlar; implantların maksiller sinüs, mandibular kanal, nazal kavite, kortikal kemik ve nazopalatin kanalda perforasyon, hatalı açılandırma, vertikal kemik rezorpsiyonu, implant fraktürü, komşu diş kökü ile temas ve periapikal radyolusensi başlıkları altında incelendi. Elde edilen veriler deskriptif istatistik ve ki-kare testleriyle analiz edildi.
Bulgular: Çalışmada tplam 341 dental implant değerlendirildi ve bunların % 87.1’inde yukarıda sözü edilen komplikasyonlardan en az biri tespit edildi. Komplikasyonlu 297 dental implantta toplam 505 komplikasyon (implant başına 1.7 komplikasyon) gözlendi. Hasta başına düşen implant sayısı 3.31 ± 2.3, komplikasyonlu implant sayısı 2.88 ± 2.1’di. En fazla gözlenen üç komplikasyon, implant çevresindeki vertikal kemik rezorpsiyonu (% 59.6), kortikal kemik perforasyonu (% 40.1) ve hatalı açılandırmaydı (% 24.9). Komplikasyon belirlenen implantlar en fazla maksiller posterior bölgesindekilerdi. Maksiller sinüs tabanındaki implant perforasyon derinliği 0-12 mm arasında ve ortalama 2.36 ± 2.06 mm olarak bulundu.
Sonuç: Çalışmanın sonuçları, dental implantlardaki komplikasyon görülme sıklığının yüksek olduğunu gösterdi. En fazla gözlenen komplikasyonun vertikal kemik rezorpsiyonu olduğu ve çoğunlukla maksiller posterior bölgede görüldüğü tespit edildi.

The retrospective assessment of complications in dental implants via cone-beam computed tomography
Abstract
Background: In recent years, dental implants are widely used for partially and complete edentulous jaw rehabilitation. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the types and prevalence of dental implants complications identified on the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images.
Methods: In the radiology clinic, 1025 patient’s KIBT images obtained for various dental reasons were scanned, and 103 images with dental implants were examined retrospectively for the presence/absence of complications. Complications were recorded under these titles; maxillary sinus, mandibular canal, nasal fossa, cortical bone, and nasopalatine canal perforation, improper angulation, vertical bone resorption, implant fracture, contact with neighboring tooth root, periapical radiolucency. Obtained data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and chi-square test.
Results: Totally 341 dental implants were examined and at least one of the above-mentioned complications was detected in 87.1 % of 341 implants. A total of 505 complications (1.7 complications per implant) were observed in 297 dental implants. The number of implants per patient was 3.31 ± 2.3 and the number of complications was 2.88 ± 2.1. The three most common complications were vertical bone resorption around the implant (59.6 %), cortical bone perforation (40.1 %), and incorrect angulation (24.9 %). Implants with complications were mostly observed in the maxillary posterior region. The perforation depth of the maxillary sinus floor was between 0-12 mm and the mean was 2.36 ± 2.06 mm.
Conclusion: The results of this study showed that the prevalence of dental implant complications was high. The most common complication was vertical bone resorption and was mostly detected in the maxillary posterior region.
Key words: dental implant, complication, cone beam computed tomography

Keywords

dental implant, komplikasyon, konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi

References

• 1. Balshi TJ, Wolfinger GJ, Stein BE, Balshi SF. A long-term retrospective analysis of survival rates of implants in the mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30(6):1348-54. 2. Soto-Peñaloza D, Zaragozí-Alonso R, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Peñarrocha-Diago M. The all-on-four treatment concept: Systematic review. Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry. 2017;9(3):e474. 3. De Angelis F, Papi P, Mencio F, Rosella D, Di Carlo S, Pompa G. Implant survival and success rates in patients with risk factors: results from a long-term retrospective study with a 10 to 18 years follow-up. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2017;21(3):433-7. 4. Ferrigno N, Laureti M, Fanali S. Dental implants placement in conjunction with osteotome sinus floor elevation: a 12‐year life‐table analysis from a prospective study on 588 ITI® implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(2):194-205. 5. Fugazzotto PA, Vlassis J, Butler B. ITI implant use in private practice: clinical results with 5,526 implants followed up to 72+ months in function. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19(3). 6. Schwartz‐Arad D, Herzberg R, Levin L. Evaluation of long‐term implant success. J Periodontol. 2005;76(10):1623-8. 7. Sennerby L, Becker W. Implant success versus survival. 2000. 8. Kohavi D, Azran G, Shapira L, Casap N. Retrospective clinical review of dental implants placed in a university training program. J Oral Implantol. 2004;30(1):23-9. 9. 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(5):776-82. 10. Misch K, Wang H-L. Implant surgery complications: etiology and treatment. Implant Dent. 2008;17(2):159-68. 11. Yepes JF, Al-Sabbagh M. Use of cone-beam computed tomography in early detection of implant failure. Dental Clinics. 2015;59(1):41-56. 12. Schulze RKW, Berndt D, d'Hoedt B. On cone‐beam computed tomography artifacts induced by titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(1):100-7. 13. Wang G, Vannier MW, Cheng P-C. Iterative X-ray cone-beam tomography for metal artifact reduction and local region reconstruction. Microsc Microanal. 1999;5(1):58-65. 14. Zhang Y, Zhang L, Zhu XR, Lee AK, Chambers M, Dong L. Reducing metal artifacts in cone-beam CT images by preprocessing projection data. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2007;67(3):924-32. 15. Yilmaz Z, Ucer C, Scher E, Suzuki J, Renton T. A Survey of the Opinion and Experience of UK Dentists: Part 2 Risk Assessment Strategies and the Management of Iatrogenic Trigeminal Nerve Injuries Related to Dental Implant Surgery. Implant Dent. 2017;26(2):256-62. 16. Rai A, Burde K, Guttal K, Naikmasur VG. Comparison between cone-beam computed tomography and direct digital intraoral imaging for the diagnosis of periapical pathology. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. 2016;4(3):50. 17. Zhong W, Chen B, Liang X, Ma G. Experimental study on penetration of dental implants into the maxillary sinus in different depths. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2013;21(6):560-6. 18. Reiser GM, Rabinovitz Z, Bruno J, Damoulis PD, Griffin TJ. Evaluation of maxillary sinus membrane response following elevation with the crestal osteotome technique in human cadavers. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001;16(6). 19. Timmenga NM, Raghoebar GM, Boering G, van Weissenbruch R. Maxillary sinus function after sinus lifts for the insertion of dental implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997;55(9):936-9. 20. Baumann A, Ewers R. The minimal sinus floor elevation-Limitation and possibilities in the atrophic maxilla. Mund-, Kiefer-und Gesichtschirurgie. 1999;3(7):S70-S3. 21. Elhamruni LMM, Marzook HAM, Ahmed WMS, Abdul-Rahman M. Experimental study on penetration of dental implants into the maxillary sinus at different depths. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;20(3):281-7. 22. Bartling R, Freeman K, Kraut RA. The incidence of altered sensation of the mental nerve after mandibular implant placement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999;57(12):1408-10. 23. van Steenberghe D, Lekholm U, Bolender C, Folmer T, Henry P, Herrmann I, et al. The Applicability of Osseointegrated Oral Implants in the Rehabilitation of Partial Edentulism: A Prospective Multicenter Study on 558 Fixtures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990;5(3). 24. Ellies LG, Hawker PB. The prevalence of altered sensation associated with implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;8(6). 25. McDermott NE, Chuang S-K, Woo VV, Dodson TB. Complications of dental implants: identification, frequency, and associated risk factors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18(6).