İMPLANT TEDAVİSİNDE DİAGNOSTİK GÖRÜNTÜLEME TEKNİKLERİNE BAĞLI KOMPLİKASYONLAR

Gülfem Ergün; Zeynep Şahin

doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.473436

İMPLANT TEDAVİSİNDE DİAGNOSTİK GÖRÜNTÜLEME TEKNİKLERİNE BAĞLI KOMPLİKASYONLAR

Öz

İmplant başarısının en önemli faktörlerinden birisi doğ- ru tedavi planlamasıdır. Diagnostik görüntüleme, bu hedefin gerçekleştirilmesinde önemli bir rol oynar. Gö- rüntüleme tekniği hem anatomiyi dikkate almalı hem de boyutsal doğruluğu sağlamalıdır. Film boyutlarının kısıtlı olması, görüntüdeki distorsiyon, büyüme ve iki boyutlu görüntü bazı olgularda radyografinin kulanı- mını sınırlar. Geleneksel radyografi ile ilgili dezavan- tajlar nedeniyle bilgisayarlı tomografi ve konik ışınlı bil- gisayarlı tomografi gibi ileri teknolojiler daha çok tercih edilmektedir. İmplant cerrahi uygulamasında kaçınıl- ması gereken başarısızlıklardan birisi komşu yapıların zarar görmesidir. Bu komplikasyonların arasında en önemlileri paranasal sinüsün perfore olması, komşu dişin kökünün zarar görmesi, kortikal tabakanın, damarların, kanalın ve daha da önemlisi sinirlerin perfore edilmesidir. Cerrahi bölgeye implant planla- masının transfer edilmesindeki en güncel yaklaşım, interaktif bilgisayar yazılım programları yardımı ile bilgisayar destekli tasarım ve bilgisayar destekli üretim tekniğinin kullanılmasıdır. Bu güncel gelişmeler ve ileri görüntüleme teknikleri, implant tedavisinin başarısını artırmada ve önemli komplikasyonların önlenmesinde rol oynamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Tanısal görüntüleme, komplikas- yonlar, bilgisayar yardımlı tasarım, konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi, diş implantı

COMPLICATIONS RELATED TO DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING TECHNIQUES IN IMPLANT TREATMENT

ABSTRACT

One of the most important factors in implant success is proper treatment planning. Diagnostic imaging is an important tool to accomplish this task. On imaging, the modality should not only consider the anatomy but should also provide dimensional accuracy. Limited film size, image distortion, magnification and a two-dimensional view restrict their use in some cases. Because of the drawbacks associated with traditional radiographs, higher technologies such as computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography are better preferred. Injury to adjacent structures is an avoidable outcome of oral implant placement surgery. Paramount among these is perforation into paranasal sinüs; into neighboring tooth root; through cortical plate and into vessels, canals and most importantly, nerves. The most actual approach for the transfer of implant planning to the surgical site is to use computer-aided design/ computer-aided manufacturing technique. These actual developments and advanced imaging techniques; improving the success of the implant treatment, and plays an important role in the prevention of complications.

Keyswords: Diagnostic imaging, complications, Computer-Aided Design, Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, dental implant

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tanısal görüntüleme,komplikas- yonlar,bilgisayar yardımlı tasarım,konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi

Kaynakça

1. Kayabasoglu G, Nacar A, Altundag A, Cayonu M, Muhtarogullari M, Cingi C. A retrospective analysis of the relationship between rhinosinusitis and sinus lift dental implantation. Head Face Med 2014;15:53-8.
2. Çakur B, Sümbüllü MA, Harorlı A. Operasyon öncesi implant yerlerinin belirlenmesinde radyolojik kriterler ve radyolojik teknik seçimi. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 2007;17:23-30.
3. Cochran DL, Nummikoski PV, Schoolfield JD, Jones AA, Oates TW. A prospective multicenter 5-year radiographic evaluation of crestal bone levelsover time in 596 dental implants placed in 192 patients. J Periodontol 2009;80:725-33.
4. Merheb J, Van Assche N, Coucke W, Jacobs R, Naert I, Quirynen M. Relationship between cortical bone thickness or computerized tomography-derivedbone density values and implant stability. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:612-7.
5. Thakkar M, Mehta R, Joshi S, Sharma S. Implant Complications and Failures-A Review. Adv Hum Biol 2013;3:20-7.
6. Chan HL, Misch K, Wang HL. Dental imaging in implant treatment planning. Implant Dent 2010;19:288-98.
7. Harris D, Horner K, Gröndahl K, Jacobs R, Helmrot E, Benic GI, Bornstein MM, Dawood A, Quirynen M.E.A.O. 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;23:1243-53.
8. Gupta S, Patil N, Solanki J, Singh R, Laller S. Oral Implant Imaging: A Review. Malays J Med Sci 2015; 22: 7-17.

9. Nagarajan A, Perumalsamy R, Thyagarajan R, Namasivayam A. Diagnostic imaging for dental implant therapy. J Clin Imaging Sci 2014;4:4-14.
10. Shruthi M, Sangeetha R, Singh AK, Kini R, Naik V. To Implant or not to Implant? The Role of Imaging. J Orofac Res 2013;3:210-7.
11. Bhoosreddy AR, Bhoosreddy S, Shirsekar VU. Implant Imaging. J Contemp Dent 2013;3:127-32.
12. Dagassan-Berndt DC, Zitzmann NU, Walter C, Schulze RK. Implant treatment planning regarding augmentation procedures: panoramic radiographs vs. cone beam computed tomography images. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;30:1-7.
13. Du Toit J, Gluckman H, Gamil R, Renton T. Implant Injury Case Series and Review of the Literature Part 1: Inferior Alveolar Nerve Injury. J Oral Implantol 2015;41:144-51.
14. Sanchez Garces MA, Escoda-Francoli J, Gay-Escoda C. Implant Complications, Implant Dentistry-The Most Promising Discipline of Dentistry, Ilser Turkyilmaz (Ed.). 1 ed. Rijeka; Croatia: 2011. p.369-81.
15. D'Souza KM, Aras MA. Types of implant surgical guides in dentistry: a review. J Oral Implantol 2012;38:643-52.
16. De Kok IJ, Thalji G, Bryington M, Cooper LF. Radiographic stents: integrating treatment planning and implant placement. Dent Clin North Am 2014;58:181-92.
17. Van Assche N, van Steenberghe D, Guerrero ME, Hirsch E, Schutyser F, Quirynen M, Jacobs R. Accuracy of implant placement based on pre-surgical planning of three-dimensional cone-beam images: a pilot study. J Clin Periodontol 2007;34:816-21.
18. Nickenig HJ, Wichmann M, Hamel J, Schlegel KA, Eitner S. Evaluation of the difference in accuracy between implant placement by virtual planning data and surgical guide templates versus the conventional free-hand method - a combined in vivo - in vitro technique using cone-beam CT (Part II). J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2010;38:488-93.
19. Nickenig HJ, Eitner S. Reliability of implant placement after virtual planning of implant positions using cone beam CT data and surgical (guide) templates. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2007;35:207-11.
20. Liang X, Jacobs R, Martens W, Hu Y, Adriaensens P, Quirynen M, Lambrichts I. Macro- and micro-anatomical, histological and computed tomography scan characterization of the nasopalatine canal. J Clin Periodontol. 2009;36:598-603.
21. Neves FS, Crusoé-Souza M, Franco LC, Caria PH, Bonfim-Almeida P, Crusoé-Rebello I. Canalis sinuosus: a rare anatomical variation. Surg Radiol Anat 2012;34:563-6.
22. Mardinger O, Namani-Sadan N, Chaushu G, Schwartz-Arad D. Morphologic changes of the nasopalatine canal related to dental implantation: a radiologic study in different degrees of absorbed maxillae. J Periodontol 2008;79:1659-62.
23. Jacobs R, Lambrichts I, Liang X, Martens W, Mraiwa N, Adriaensens P, Gelan J.Neurovascularization of the anterior jaw bones revisited using high-resolutionmagnetic resonance imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;103:683-93.
24. Kusum CK, Mody PV, Indrajeet, Nooji D, Rao SK, Wankhade BG. Interforaminal hemorrhage during anterior mandibular implant placement: An overview. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2015;12:291-300.
25. Tagaya A, Matsuda Y, Nakajima K, Seki K, Okano T. Assessment of the blood supply to the lingual surface of the mandible for reduction of bleeding during implant surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:351-5.
26. Gültekin S, Araç M, Celik H, Karaosmaoğlu AD, Işık S. Mandibulanın lingual vasküler kanallarının dental BT ile değerlendirilmesi. Tanı Girisim Radyol 2003;9:188-91.
27. Vazquez L, Saulacic N, Belser U, Bernard JP. Efficacy of panoramic radiographs in the preoperative planning of posterior mandibular implants: a prospective clinical study of 1527 consecutively treated patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:81-5.
28. Kütük N, Gönen ZB, Yaşar MT, Demirbaş AE, Alkan A. Reliability of panoramic radiography in determination of neurosensory disturbances related to dental implant placement in posterior mandible. Implant Dent 2014;23:648-52.
29. Alhassani AA, AlGhamdi AS. Inferior alveolar nerve injury in implant dentistry: diagnosis, causes, prevention, and management. J Oral Implantol 2010;36:401-7.
30. Gómez-Román G, Lautner NV, Goldammer C, McCoy M. Anterior Loop of the Mandibular Canal-A Source of Possible Complications. Implant Dent 2015;24:578-85.
31. Momota Y, Kani K, Takano H, Azuma M. Cerebellopontine angle mass mimicking lingual nerve injury after dental implantplacement: a case report. Aust Dent J 2015;60:412-5.
32. Torres MG, de Faro Valverde L, Vidal MT, Crusoé-Rebello IM. Branch of the canalis sinuosus: a rare anatomical variation--a case report. Surg Radiol Anat 2015;37:879-81.
33. Leckel M, Kress B, Schmitter M. Neuropathic pain resulting from implant placement: case report and diagnostic conclusions. J Oral Rehabil 2009;36:543-6.
34. Tadinada A, Fung K, Thacker S, Mahdian M, Jadhav A, Schincaglia GP. Radiographic evaluation of the maxillary sinus prior to dental implant therapy: A comparison between two-dimensional and three-dimensional radiographic imaging. Imaging Sci Dent 2015 ;45:169-74.
35. Guerrero ME, Noriega J, Jacobs R. Preoperative implant planning considering alveolar bone grafting needs and complication prediction using panoramic versus CBCT images. Imaging Sci Dent 2014;44:213-20.
36. Galindo-Moreno P, Padial-Molina M, Avila G, Rios HF, Hernández-Cortés P, Wang HL. Complications associated with implant migration into the maxillary sinus cavity. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:1152-60.
37. Shahbazian M, Vandewoude C, Wyatt J, Jacobs R. Comparative assessment of panoramic radiography and CBCT imaging for radiodiagnostics in the posterior maxilla. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:293-300.
38. Rege IC, Sousa TO, Leles CR, Mendonça EF. Occurrence of maxillary sinus abnormalities detected by cone beam CT in asymptomatic patients. BMC Oral Health 2012;30:1-7.
39. Fortin T, Camby E, Alik M, Isidori M, Bouchet H. Panoramic images versus three-dimensional planning software for oral implant planning in atrophied posterior maxillary: a clinical radiological study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013;15:198-204.
40. de Rezende Barbosa GL, Ramírez-Sotelo LR, Távora Dde M, de Almeida SM. Vertical measurements for planning palatal mini-implants in lateral radiography and cone beam computed tomography. Implant Dent 2014;23:588-92.
41. Jung BA, Wehrbein H, Heuser L, Kunkel M. Vertical palatal bone dimensions on lateral cephalometry and cone-beam computed tomography: implications for palatal implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:664-8.
42. 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.
43. Peker I, Alkurt MT, Michcioglu T. The use of 3 different imaging methods for the localization of the mandibular canal in dental implant planning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:463-70.
44. Hämmerle CH, Cordaro L, van Assche N, Benic GI, Bornstein M,Gamper F, Gotfredsen K, Harris D, Hürzeler M, Jacobs R, Kapos T, Kohal RJ, Patzelt SB, Sailer I, Tahmaseb A, Vercruyssen M, Wismeijer D.Digital technologies to support planning, treatment, and fabrication processesand outcome assessments in implant dentistry. Summary and consensus statements. The 4th EAO consensus conference 2015. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:97-101.
45. Vercruyssen M, Laleman I, Jacobs R, Quirynen M.Computer-supported implant planning and guided surgery: a narrative review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:69-76.
46. Jung RE, Schneider D, Ganeles J, Wismeijer D, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CH, TahmasebA. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:92-109.
47. Stapleton BM, Lin WS, Ntounis A, Harris BT, Morton D. Application of digital diagnostic impression, virtual planning, and computer-guided implant surgery for a CAD/CAM-fabricated, implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:402-8.
48. Geng W, Liu C, Su Y, Li J, Zhou Y. Accuracy of different types of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing surgical guides for dental implant placement. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015;8:8442-9.
49. Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Derksen W. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29: 25-42.50.
50. Ersoy AE, Turkyilmaz I, Ozan O, McGlumphy EA. Reliability of implant placement with stereolithographic surgical guides generated from computed tomography: clinical data from 94 implants. J Periodontol 2008;79:1339-45.51.
51. Vercruyssen M, Hultin M, Van Assche N, Svensson K, Naert I, Quirynen M. Guided surgery: accuracy and efficacy. Periodontol 2000 2014;66:228-46.
52. Block MS, Chandler C. Computed tomography-guided surgery: complications associated with scanning, processing, surgery, and prosthetics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:13-22.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Türkçe

Konular

Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi

Bölüm

Derleme

Yazarlar

Gülfem Ergün Bu kişi benim
0000-0001-9981-5522

Zeynep Şahin

Yayımlanma Tarihi

11 Temmuz 2018

Gönderilme Tarihi

1 Temmuz 2016

Kabul Tarihi

26 Temmuz 2016

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2018 Cilt: 28 Sayı: 3

DOI

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.473436

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA89KE58CK

Kaynak Göster

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Ergün, G., & Şahin, Z. (2018). İMPLANT TEDAVİSİNDE DİAGNOSTİK GÖRÜNTÜLEME TEKNİKLERİNE BAĞLI KOMPLİKASYONLAR. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(3), 429-442. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.473436

AMA

1.Ergün G, Şahin Z. İMPLANT TEDAVİSİNDE DİAGNOSTİK GÖRÜNTÜLEME TEKNİKLERİNE BAĞLI KOMPLİKASYONLAR. Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2018;28(3):429-442. doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.473436

Chicago

Ergün, Gülfem, ve Zeynep Şahin. 2018. “İMPLANT TEDAVİSİNDE DİAGNOSTİK GÖRÜNTÜLEME TEKNİKLERİNE BAĞLI KOMPLİKASYONLAR”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 28 (3): 429-42. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.473436.

EndNote

Ergün G, Şahin Z (01 Temmuz 2018) İMPLANT TEDAVİSİNDE DİAGNOSTİK GÖRÜNTÜLEME TEKNİKLERİNE BAĞLI KOMPLİKASYONLAR. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 28 3 429–442.

IEEE

[1]G. Ergün ve Z. Şahin, “İMPLANT TEDAVİSİNDE DİAGNOSTİK GÖRÜNTÜLEME TEKNİKLERİNE BAĞLI KOMPLİKASYONLAR”, Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg, c. 28, sy 3, ss. 429–442, Tem. 2018, doi: 10.17567/ataunidfd.473436.

ISNAD

Ergün, Gülfem - Şahin, Zeynep. “İMPLANT TEDAVİSİNDE DİAGNOSTİK GÖRÜNTÜLEME TEKNİKLERİNE BAĞLI KOMPLİKASYONLAR”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 28/3 (01 Temmuz 2018): 429-442. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.473436.

JAMA

1.Ergün G, Şahin Z. İMPLANT TEDAVİSİNDE DİAGNOSTİK GÖRÜNTÜLEME TEKNİKLERİNE BAĞLI KOMPLİKASYONLAR. Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2018;28:429–442.

MLA

Ergün, Gülfem, ve Zeynep Şahin. “İMPLANT TEDAVİSİNDE DİAGNOSTİK GÖRÜNTÜLEME TEKNİKLERİNE BAĞLI KOMPLİKASYONLAR”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, c. 28, sy 3, Temmuz 2018, ss. 429-42, doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.473436.

Vancouver

1.Gülfem Ergün, Zeynep Şahin. İMPLANT TEDAVİSİNDE DİAGNOSTİK GÖRÜNTÜLEME TEKNİKLERİNE BAĞLI KOMPLİKASYONLAR. Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg. 01 Temmuz 2018;28(3):429-42. doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.473436

Cited By

Retrospective Evaluation of Implant Complications Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography

Journal of International Dental Sciences

https://doi.org/10.21306/dishekimligi.1817433