Distribution of Implant Failure Caused by Positioning in a Group of Turkish Patients on CBCT

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this report was to evaluate the prevalence of implant failure rates due to implant positioning on Cone beam Computerized Tomography. Methods: Study sample (n= 333) consisted of CBCT(Cone-beam computerized tomography) scans of patients who were referred to the Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, University of Health Sciences Turkey, Gülhane Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey. Obtained data such as age, gender, number of implants and locations from CBCT images gathered and recorded. Results: The data consists of 333 patients and so the total data evaluated was 844. The implant survival rate of the patients between 20-40 years old (49.4%) was lower significantly than that of the patients ≥ 40 years old (P=0.001). In the R4 (right mandibular region), implant failure rate is 17.5% shows quite low rate compared to other regions. At the R1 (right maxillar region) (39%) and R2 (45%) the most common reason of failure was maxillary sinus perforation, the least common reason was palatinal bone perforation, respectively 4% and 1%. Conclusion: Preventing misinterpretations of clinicians is only possible by correct evaluation of incidental findings and better knowledge of head and neck anatomy.

Keywords

• Cbct
• implant failure
• incidentally findings

References

1. Jokstad A, Braegger U, Brunski JB, Carr AB, Noert I, Wennerberg A. Quality of dental ımplants. Int Dental Journal. 2003;53(S6P2):409-43.
2. Türker M, Yücetaş Ş. Ağız diş hastalıkları ve cerrahisi. 3rd ed. Ankara: Özyurt; 2004. p. 501.
3. Avsever H, Gunduz K, Karakoç O, Akyol M, Orhan K. Incidental findings on cone-beam computed tomographic images: paranasal sinus findings and nasal septum variations. Oral Radiol. 2018 Jan;34(1):40-48.
4. Allareddy V, Vincent SD, Hellstein JW, Qian F, Smoker WR, Ruprecht A. Incidental findings on cone beam computed tomography images. Int J Dent. 2012;871532.
5. Price JB, Thaw KL, Tyndall DA, Ludlow JB, Padilla RJ. Incidental findings from cone beam computed tomography of the maxillofacial region: a descriptive retrospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:1261–8.
6. Warhekar S, Nagarajappa S, Dasar PL, Warhekar AM, Parihar A, Phulambrikar T, et al. Incidental findings on cone beam computed tomography and reasons for referral by dental practitioners in indore city (m.p). J Clin Diagn Res. 2015 Feb;9(2):ZC21–4.
7. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc. 2006;72:75-80.
8. Newaz ZA, Barghan S, Katkar RA, Bennett JA, Nair MK. Incidental findings of skull-base abnormalities in cone-beam computed tomographyscans with consultation by maxillofacial radiologists. Am J Orthod DEntofacial Orthop. 2015;147(1):127-31.

9. Peker Öztürk H, Avsever H, Gündüz K, Akyol M, Orhan K. Frequency of accessory mental foramen and mandibular canal variations in dental implant patients: a retrospective cbct study. J Stoma. 2018;71(6):472-477.
10. Shah KC, Lum MG. Treatment planning for single tooth implant restoration: General considerations and the pretreatment evaluation. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2008;36(11):827-34.
11. American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Introduction to implant dentistry: a student guide. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2017 February:75(2);14.
12. 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 Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology. 2012;113(6):817–26.
13. Benavides E, Rios HF, Ganz SD et al. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: the international congress of oral implantologists consensus report. Implant Dentistry. 2012;21(2):78–86.
14. Hu KS, Choi DY, Lee WJ, Kim HJ, Jung UW, Kim S. Reliability of two different presurgical preparation methods forimplant dentistry based on panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in cadavers. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2012;42(2):39–44.
15. Tal H, Moses O. A comparison of panoramic radiography with computed tomography in the planning of implant surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1991;20(1):40–2.
16. Vazquez L, Saulacic N, Belser U, Bernard JP. Efficacy of panoramic radiographs in the planning of posterior mandibular implants: a prospective clinical study of 1527 consecutively treated patients. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(1):81–5.
17. Jaju PP, Jaju SP. Clinical utility of dental cone-beam computed tomography: current perspectives. Clinical Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry. 2014;6:29-43.
18. Dreiseidler T, Mischkowski RA, Neugebauer J, Ritter L, Zöller JE. Comparison of cone-beam imaging with orthopantomography and computerized tomography for assessment in presurgical implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24:216-25.
19. Harris D, Buser D, Dula K, Grondahl K, Harris D, Jacobs R, et al; EAO. Guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13(5):566-70.
20. Bornstein MM, Horner K , Jacobs R. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: current concepts, indications and limitations for clinical practice and research. Periodontology 2000. 2017 February;73(1):51-72.
21. Hickin MP, Shariff JA, Jennette PJ, Finkelstein J, Papapanou PN. Incidence and determinants of dental implant failure: a review of electronic health records in a U.S. dental school. Journal of Dental Education. 2017 October;81(10):1233-42.
22. Cosana LC, Perez AR, Spinato S, Wainwright M, Portillo GM, Figallo MAS, et al. Descriptive retrospective study analyzing relevant factors related to dental implant failure. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2019;Nov;24(6):726–38.
23. 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.
24. Soto‐Penaloza D, Zaragozi‐Alonso R, Penarrocha‐Diago M, Penarrocha‐Diago M. The all‐on‐four treatment concept: systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(3):474–88.
25. 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):433–37.
26. Schwartz‐Arad D, Herzberg R, Levin L. Evaluation of long‐term implant success. J Periodontol. 2005;76(10):1623–28.
27. 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.
28. Elhamruni LM, Marzook HA, Ahmed WM, Abdul‐Rahman M. Experimental study on penetration of dental implants into the maxillary sinus at different depths. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 20(3): 281–87.
29. Schwartz‐Arad D, Herzberg R, Dolev E. The prevalence of surgical complications of the sinus graft procedure and their impact on implant survival. J Periodontol. 2004;75(4):511–16.
30. Branemark PI, Adell R, Albrektsson T, Lekholm U, Lindstrom J, Rockler B. An experimental and clinical study of osseointegrated implants penetrating the nasal cavity and maxillary sinus. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1984;42:497-505.
31. Misch C.E. Density of bone: effect on surgical approach, and healing. In: Misch CE editors. Contemporary implant dentistry. St Louis: Mosby; 1999. p. 371-84.
32. Ekfeldt A, Christiansson U, Eriksson T, Lindén U, Lundqvist S, Rundcrantz T, et al. A retrospective analysis of factors associated with multiple implant failures in maxillae. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001;12:462-67.
33. Hsu CH, Wang HW. Quasineoplastic Lesion in the Nasal Cavity Caused by a dental implant. J Med Sci. 2009;29(1):033-034.
34. Wolff J, Karagozoğlu KH, Bretschneider JH, Forouzanfar T, Schulten EAJM. Altered nasal airflow: an unusual complication following implant surgery in the anterior maxilla. International Journal of Implant Dentistry 2. 2016;6:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-016-0045-3.
35. Raghoebar GM, van Weissenbruch R, Vissink A. Rhino‐sinusitis related to endosseous implants extending into the nasal cavity; A case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;33(3):312–14.
36. Casado PL, Donner M, Pascarelli B, Derocy C, Duarte MEL, Barboza EP. Immediate dental implant failure associated with nasopalatine duct cyst. Implant dentıstry. 2008;17(2):169-75.
37. McCrea SJ. Nasopalatine duct cyst, a delayed complication to successful dental implant placement: diagnosis and surgical management. Journal of Oral Implantology. 2014;40:189-95.
38. Takeshita K, Funaki K, Jimbo R, Takahashi T. Nasopalatine duct cyst developed in association with dental implant treatment: A case report and histopathological observation. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2013;17(2):319.
39. Harris D, Horner K, Grohndal K, Jacobs R, Benic GI, Bornstein MM, et al. Guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry 2011: update of the E.A.O consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseintegration in the Medical University of Warsaw, Poland. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:1243-53.
40. Peker Öztürk H, Gündüz K, Özgedik S, Karaçaylı Ü, Avsever H, Orhan K. Evaluation of cbct ımages: two case reports of calcifications and anatomical variations. Dentistry Adv Res. 2018; ıssue 01: DTAR-146.