Ultrasonography for Diagnosis of Technical Implant Errors: A Pilot Study in Sheep Model

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 34 Sayı: 4, 297 - 301, 15.10.2024

Yerda Özkan , Fatma Çağlayan , Hatice Güller , Faruk Çağrı Onat

https://doi.org/10.17567/currresdentsci.1463800

Öz

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate technical implant errors with CBCT and ultrasonography and to evaluate the success of USG in demonstrating these errors.
Method: Two freshly cut sheep heads were obtained. A radiological examination was performed with both CBCT and USG before and after the dental implant placement. 10 implants (2 right, 3 left) were placed to represent a represent normal placement implant and 4 different complications: crestal bone defect, cortical bone perforation, mental foramen perforation, mandibular canal perforation.
Results: The implants placed in the normal position without complications could not be visualized by USG in both sheep heads. Perforation areas of implants in the cortical bone were visualized by USG in both samples. The mental foramen could be visualized preoperatively with USG, and the perforations caused by the implants in the mental foramen could also be visualized with USG. In addition, positive findings were obtained by USG in a crestal bone defect. Mandibular canal perforation could not be visualized by USG in both heads.
Conclusion: USG is a useful imaging method that can be used to quickly detect technical errors such as cortical perforation, mental foramen perforation, crestal bone loss, and placement outside the bone that occur during implant surgery.
Keywords: Cone-beam computed tomography, ultrasonography, dental implant

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cone-beam computed tomography, ultrasonography, dental implant

Teknik İmplant Hatalarının Tanısında Ultrasonografi: Koyun Modelinde Pilot Çalışma

Öz

Amaç : Bu çalışmanın amacı CBCT ve ultrasonografi ile teknik implant hatalarını tespit etmek ve USG’nin bu hataları göstermedeki başarısını değerlendirmektir.
Yöntemler : İki adet taze kesilmiş koyun kafası elde edildi. Dental implant yerleştirme öncesi ve sonrasında hem CBCT hem de USG ile radyolojik inceleme yaoıldı. Normal yerleştirme, krestal kemik defekti, kortikal kemik perforasyonu, mental foramen perforasyonu, mandibular kanal perforasyonu olarak 5 farklı komplikasyonu temsil eden 10 implant (2 sağ, 3 sol) flepsiz teknikle yerleştirildi.
Bulgular : Normal pozisyonda komplikasyonsuz yerleştirilen implantlar her iki koyun kafasında da USG ile görüntülenemedi. Her iki örnekte de implantların kortikal kemikteki perforasyon alanları USG ile görüntülendi. USG ile ameliyat öncesinde mental foramen görüntülenebildiği gibi, implantların mental foramende neden olduğu perforasyonlarda USG ile görüntülenebildi. Ayrıca boyun perforasyonunda USG ile pozitif bulgular elde edildi. Her iki kafada da USG ile mandibular kanal perforasyonu görüntülenemedi.
Sonuç : USG, implant cerrahisi sırasında oluşan kortikal perforasyon, mental foramen perforasyonu, krestal kemik kaybı, kemik dışına yerleşim gibi teknik hataların hızlı bir şekilde tespit edilmesinde kullanılabilecek faydalı bir görüntüleme yçntemidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi, ultrasonografi, dental implant

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışmada Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Et ve Süt Kurumundan elde edilen koyun kafaları kullanılmış olup. Çalışma için hiç bir canlı öldürülmemiştir.

Kaynakça

• 1. Schwartz-Arad D, Herzberg R, Levin L. Evaluation of Long-Term Implant Success. J Periodontol. 2005;76(10):1623-1628.
• 2. Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindström J. Osseointegrated Titanium Implants: Requirements for Ensuring a Long-Lasting, Direct Bone-to-Implant Anchorage in Man. Acta Orthop Scand. 1981;52(2):155-170.
• 3. Carlsson L, Röstlund T, Albrektsson B, Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI. Osseointegration of titanium implants. Acta Orthop Scand. 1986;57(4):285-289.
• 4. Franchi M, Orsini E, Triré A, et al. Osteogenesis and Morphology of the Peri-Implant Bone Facing Dental Implants. The Scientific World JOURNAL. 2004;4:1083-1095.
• 5. Esposito M, Coulthard P, Thomsen P, Worthington H. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants. In: Esposito M, ed. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2005. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003815.pub2
• 6. Bergman B. Evaluation of the results of treatment with osseointegrated implants by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;50(1):114-115.
• 7. 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):776-782.
• 8. 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):817-826.
• 9. Fontenele RC, Nascimento EH, Vasconcelos T V, Noujeim M, Freitas DQ. Magnitude of cone beam CT image artifacts related to zirconium and titanium implants: impact on image quality. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2018;47(6):20180021.
• 10. Lorenzoni DC, Bolognese AM, Garib DG, Guedes FR, Sant’Anna EF. Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Radiographs in Dentistry: Aspects Related to Radiation Dose. Int J Dent. 2012;2012:1-10
• 11. Horner K, Islam M, Flygare L, Tsiklakis K, Whaites E. Basic principles for use of dental cone beam computed tomography: consensus guidelines of the European Academy of Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2009;38(4):187-195.
• 12. González-Martín O, Oteo C, Ortega R, Alandez J, Sanz M, Veltri M. Evaluation of peri-implant buccal bone by computed tomography: an experimental study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(8):950-955.
• 13. Kühl S, Zürcher S, Zitzmann NU, Filippi A, Payer M, Dagassan-Berndt D. Detection of peri-implant bone defects with different radiographic techniques - a human cadaver study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(5):529-534. doi:10.1111/clr.12619
• 14.Chan HL, Sinjab K, Chung MP, Chiang YC, Wang HL, Giannobile W V., et al. Non-invasive evaluation of facial crestal bone with ultrasonography. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0171237.
• 15.Tzoumpas M, Mohr B, Kurtulus-Waschulewski I, Wahl G. The Use of High-Frequency Ultrasound in the Measurement of Thickness of the Maxillary Attached Gingiva. Int J Prosthodont. 2015;28(4):374-382.
• 16.Muller HP, Kononen E. Variance components of gingival thickness. J Periodontal Res. 2005;40(3):239-244.
• 17.Müller HP, Barrieshi-Nusair KM, Könönen E. Repeatability of ultrasonic determination of gingival thickness. Clin Oral Investig. 2007;11(4):439-442. doi:10.1007/s00784-007-0125-0
• 18.Eghbali A, De Bruyn H, Cosyn J, Kerckaert I, Van Hoof T. Ultrasonic Assessment of Mucosal Thickness around Implants: Validity, Reproducibility, and Stability of Connective Tissue Grafts at the Buccal Aspect. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18(1):51-61.
• 19.Shah N. Recent advances in imaging technologies in dentistry. World J Radiol. 2014;6(10):794. doi:10.4329/wjr.v6.i10.794
• 20.Salmon B, Le Denmat D. Intraoral ultrasonography: development of a specific high-frequency probe and clinical pilot study. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16(2):643-649. doi:10.1007/s00784-011-0533-z
• 21.Chifor R, Badea ME, Hedeşiu M, Chifor I. Identification of the anatomical elements used in periodontal diagnosis on 40 MHz periodontal ultrasonography. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2015;56(1): 149-153.
• 22.Nguyen KCT, Le LH, Kaipatur NR, Major PW. Imaging the Cemento-Enamel Junction Using a 20-MHz Ultrasonic Transducer. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016;42(1):333-338.
• 23.Zimbran A. Evaluation of Periodontal Tissues Using 40MHz Ultrasonography. Preliminary report. Med Ultrason. 2013;15(1):6-9.
• 24.Culjat MO, Choi M, Singh RS, White SN. Ultrasound imaging of dental implants. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012;2012:456-459.
• 25.Bertram S, Emshoff R. Sonography of periimplant buccal bone defects in periodontitis patients: A pilot study. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 2008;105(1):99-103.
• 26.Chan HL, Sinjab K, Chung MP, Chiang YC, Wang HL, Giannobile W V., et al. Non-invasive evaluation of facial crestal bone with ultrasonography. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0171237. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0171237
• 27.Chan H, Sinjab K, Li J, Chen Z, Wang H, Kripfgans OD. Ultrasonography for noninvasive and real‐time evaluation of peri‐implant tissue dimensions. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45(8):986-995.
• 28.Tattan M, Sinjab K, Lee E, Arnett M, Oh T, Wang H, et al. Ultrasonography for chairside evaluation of periodontal structures: A pilot study. J Periodontol. 2020;91(7):890-899.
• 29.Izzetti R, Vitali S, Aringhieri G, Oranges T, Dini V, Nisi M, et al. Discovering a new anatomy: exploration of oral mucosa with ultra-high frequency ultrasound. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2020;49(7):20190318.
• 30.Çağlayan F, Sümbüllü MA, Akgül HM. Is ultrasonography sufficient for evaluation of mental foramen? Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2019;48(3):20180252.
• 31.Timock AM, Cook V, McDonald T, Leo MC, Crowe J, Benninger BL, et al. Accuracy and reliability of buccal bone height and thickness measurements from cone-beam computed tomography imaging. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2011;140(5):734-744.
• 32.Braut V, Bornstein MM, Belser U, Buser D. Thickness of the anterior maxillary facial bone wall-a retrospective radiographic study using cone beam computed tomography. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2011;31(2):125-131.
• 33.Veltri M, Ekestubbe A, Abrahamsson I, Wennström JL. Three-Dimensional buccal bone anatomy and aesthetic outcome of single dental implants replacing maxillary incisors. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(8):956-963.
• 34.Serino G, Turri A, Lang NP. Probing at implants with peri-implantitis and its relation to clinical peri-implant bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(1):91-95.