ANALYSIS OF THE BUCCAL CONCAVITY OF THE ANTERIOR MAXILLA: RETROSPECTIVE CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY STUDY

Abstract

Background: It is necessary to evaluate the alveolar bone topography and adjacent anatomical structures to reduce the complication and augmentation rate in implant placement. In this study, the location and depth of the buccal crest concavity in the anterior maxilla were evaluated by cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Methods: All CBCTs in the pool were examined with the exception of patients with full edentulous. The area of the buccal concavity place and deepness were measured in three dimensions by the features of tomography software.

Results: In this study, the incidence of buccal concavity was 23.3% in central, 44.3% in the lateral and 26.4% in the canine of right maxilla; 20.3% in central, 47.1% in the lateral and 18.3% in the canine of left maxilla. The lateral teeth have the most buccal concavity rate. The location of the buccal concavity was found to be the right central (7.63 mm) and left central (8.06 mm) as the teeth with the most distance to the alveolar crest. The depths of buccal concavity were found to be shallowest in right canine (1,41 mm) and left canine (1,54 mm). No statistically significant difference was found between the age, right-left symmetry and gender in terms of the location and depth of the buccal concavity.

Conclusions: Within in the limits of this study, the risk of complication and the need for augmentation in the implant operations are higher at the lateral, whereas the canine is considered safer.

Keywords: Buccal concavity, dehiscence, immediate implant, cone-beam computed tomography

Keywords

• Buccal concavity,dehiscence,immediate implant,cone-beam computed tomography

ANTERİOR MAKSİLLER BÖLGEDEKİ BUKKAL KONKAVİTELERİN ANALİZİ: RETROSPEKTİF KONİK IŞINLI BİLGİSAYARLI TOMOGRAFİ ÇALIŞMASI

Abstract

Amaç: İmplant operasyonlarında komplikasyon riski ve ogmentasyon gerekliliği oranını azaltmak için alveoler kemiğin topografisinin, komşu anatomik yapıların ayrıntılı olarak değerlendirilmesi gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmada, anterior maksilla bölgesindeki bukkal kret konkavitesinin yeri ve derinliği konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) kullanılarak incelenmiştir.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: Sağ ve sol maksilla anterior bölgede kısmi ya da tam dişli hastaların KIBT görüntüleri taranmıştır. Anterior dişlerin kesitsel görüntülerinde milimetrik ölçümler yapılmıştır. Bukkal konkavite yeri ve konkavite derinliği üç boyutlu olarak ölçülmüştür.

Bulgular: Bu çalışmada bukkal konkavite görülme oranı sırasıyla sağ maksillada santralde %23,3, lateralde %44,3 ve kaninde %26,4; sol maksillada santralde %20,3, lateralde %47,1 ve kanin bölgesinde %18,3’tür. Sağ ve sol lateral dişler en fazla bukkal konkavite oranına sahip dişlerdir. Bukkal konkavitenin yeri alveoler kret tepesine en uzak dişler 7,63 mm ile sağ santral ve 8,06 mm ile sol santraldir. Bukkal konkavite derinlikleri en sığ dişler ortalama 1,41 mm ile sağ kanin ve ortalama 1,54 mm ile sol kanin olarak bulunmuştur. Bukkal konkavitenin yerinin ve derinliğinin yaşa, sağ-sol simetrisine ve cinsiyetlere göre yapılan karşılaştırmalı değerlendirme sonucunda istatiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunamamıştır.

Sonuçlar: Bu çalışmanın limitasyonları dahilinde, implant operasyonlarında lateral dişler cerrahi komplikasyon oranı ve greftleme gerekliliği açısından daha yüksek riske sahipken kanin dişler daha güvenli kabul edilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Bukkal konkavite, dehissens, immediat implant, konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi

Keywords

• Bukkal konkavite,dehissens,immediat implant,konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi

References

1. 1. Karoussis IK, Salvi GE, Heitz-Mayfield LJA, Bragger U, Hammerle CHF, Lang NP. Long-term implant prognosis in patients with and without a history of chronic periodontitis: a 10-year prospective cohort study of the ITIR Dental Implant System. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14(3): 329-39.
2. 2. Romeo E, Lops D, Amorfini L, Chiapasco M, Ghisolfi M, Vogel G. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of small-diameter (3.3-mm) implants followed for 1-7 years: a longitudinal study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17(2): 139-48.
3. 3. Romeo E, Lops D, Margutti E, Ghisolfi M, Chiapasco M, Vogel G. Long-term survival and success of oral implants in the treatment of full and partial arches: a 7-year prospective study with the ITI dental implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19(2): 247-59.
4. 4. Wennstrom JL, Ekestubbe A, Grondahl K, Karlsson S, Lindhe J. Oral rehabilitation with implant-supported fixed partial dentures in periodontitis-susceptible subjects. A 5-year prospective study. J Clin Periodontol 2004; 31(9): 713-24.
5. 5. Wennström JL, Ekestubbe A, Gröndahl K, Karlsson S, Lindhe J. Implant-supported single-tooth restorations: a 5-year prospective study. J Clin Periodontol 2005; 32(6): 567-74.
6. 6. Zhang W, Skrypczak A, Weltman R. Anterior maxilla alveolar ridge dimension and morphology measurement by cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) for immediate implant treatment planning. BMC Oral Health 2015; 15: 65.
7. 7. de Oliveira RCG, Leles CR, Normanha LM, Lindh C, Ribeiro-Rotta RF. Assessments of trabecular bone density at implant sites on CT images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 105(2): 231-8.
8. 8. Eufinger H, König S, Eufinger A, Machtens E. Significance of the height and width of the alveolar ridge in implantology in the edentulous maxilla. Analysis of 95 cadaver jaws and 24 consecutive patients. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir 1999; 3(1): 14-8.

9. 9. Rozé J, Babu S, Saffarzadeh A, Gayet-Delacroix M, Hoornaert A, Layrolle P. Correlating implant stability to bone structure. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20(10): 1140-5.
10. 10. Misch K, Wang HL. Implant surgery complications: etiology and treatment. Implant Dent 2008; 17(2): 159-68.
11. 11. Greenstein G, Cavallaro J, Romanos G, Tarnow D. Clinical recommendations for avoiding and managing surgical complications associated with implant dentistry: a review. J Periodontol 2008; 79(8): 1317-29.
12. 12. Ganz SD. Implant complications associated with two-and three dimensional diagnostic imaging technologies, in: Dental implant complications-etiology, prevention, and treatment, 2nd edn. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 2010; 71–99
13. 13. Ardekian L, Dodson TB. Complications associated with the placement of dental implants. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2003; 15(2): 243-9.
14. 14. Mraiwa N, Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M. Clinical assessment and surgical implications of anatomic challenges in the anterior mandible. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003; 5(4): 219-25.
15. 15. Chan HL, Misch K, Wang HL. Dental imaging in implant treatment planning. Implant Dent 2010; 19(4): 288-98.
16. 16. Benavides E, Rios HF, Ganz SD, An C-H, Resnik R, Reardon GT, vd. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists consensus report. Implant Dent 2012; 21(2): 78-86.
17. 17. Tyndall DA, Brooks SL. Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: a position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000; 89(5): 630-7.
18. 18. Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC, vd. 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): 817-26.
19. 19. Kinaia BM, Kazerani S, Korkis S, Masabni OM, Shah M, Neely AL. Effect of guided bone regeneration on immediately placed implants: Meta-analyses with at least 12 months follow up after functional loading. J Periodontol 2019; 00: 1–12.
20. 20. Tonetti MS, Cortellini P, Graziani F, Cairo F, Lang NP, Abundo R, vd. Immediate versus delayed implant placement after anterior single tooth extraction: the timing randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2017; 44(2): 215-24.
21. 21. Van Nimwegen WG, Goené RJ, Van Daelen ACL, Stellingsma K, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJA. Immediate implant placement and provisionalisation in the aesthetic zone. J Oral Rehabil 2016; 43(10): 745-52.
22. 22. Buser D, Chappuis V, Belser UC, Chen S. Implant placement post extraction in esthetic single tooth sites: when immediate, when early, when late? Periodontol 2000 2017; 73(1): 84-102.
23. 23. De Rouck T, Collys K, Cosyn J. Single-tooth replacement in the anterior maxilla by means of immediate implantation and provisionalization: a review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23(5): 897-904.
24. 24. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Polyzos IP, Felice P, Worthington HV. Timing of implant placement after tooth extraction: immediate, immediate-delayed or delayed implants? A Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol 2010; 3(3): 189-205.
25. 25. El Nahass H, Naiem SN. Palatal bone dimensions on cone beam computed tomography. Implications for the palate as autogenous donor site: an observational study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 45(1): 99-103.
26. 26. Slagter KW, Raghoebar GM, Bakker NA, Vissink A, Meijer HJA. Buccal bone thickness at dental implants in the aesthetic zone: A 1-year follow-up cone beam computed tomography study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2017; 45(1): 13-9.
27. 27. 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): 125-31.
28. 28. Grunder U, Gracis S, Capelli M. Influence of the 3-D bone-to-implant relationship on esthetics. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2005; 25(2): 113-9.
29. 29. Huynh-Ba G, Pjetursson BE, Sanz M, Cecchinato D, Ferrus J, Lindhe J, vd. Analysis of the socket bone wall dimensions in the upper maxilla in relation to immediate implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21(1): 37-42.
30. 30. Morton D, Chen S, Martin W, Levine R, Buser D. Consensus Statements and Recommended Clinical Procedures Regarding Optimizing Esthetic Outcomes in Implant Dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29: 186-215.
31. 31. Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Hard-tissue alterations following immediate implant placement in extraction sites. J Clin Periodontol 2004; 31(10): 820-8.
32. 32. Januário AL, Duarte WR, Barriviera M, Mesti JC, Araújo MG, Lindhe J. Dimension of the facial bone wall in the anterior maxilla: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22(10): 1168-71.
33. 33. Chan HL, Garaicoa-Pazmino C, Suarez F, Monje A, Benavides E, Oh TJ, vd. Incidence of implant buccal plate fenestration in the esthetic zone: a cone beam computed tomography study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29(1): 171-7.
34. 34. Garber DA, Belser UC. Restoration-driven implant placement with restoration-generated site development. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1995; 16(8): 796, 798-802, 804.
35. 35. Belser UC, Bernard JP, Buser D. Implant-supported restorations in the anterior region: prosthetic considerations. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1996; 8(9): 875-83; quiz 884.
36. 36. Chung MP, Wang IC, Chan HL, Wang HL. Evaluation of Buccal Bone Concavity in the Esthetic Zone. Implant Dent 2017; 26(5): 751-5.
37. 37. Araújo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 2005; 32(2): 212-8.
38. 38. Araújo MG, Wennström JL, Lindhe J. Modeling of the buccal and lingual bone walls of fresh extraction sites following implant installation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17(6): 606-14.
39. 39. Cardaropoli G, Araújo M, Hayacibara R, Sukekava F, Lindhe J. Healing of extraction sockets and surgically produced-augmented and non-augmented-defects in the alveolar ridge. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 2005; 32(5): 435-40.
40. 40. Ferrus J, Cecchinato D, Pjetursson EB, Lang NP, Sanz M, Lindhe J. Factors influencing ridge alterations following immediate implant placement into extraction sockets. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21(1): 22-9.
41. 41. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003; 23(4): 313-23.
42. 42. Eufinger H, König S, Eufinger A. The role of alveolar ridge width in dental implantology. Clin Oral Investig 1997; 1(4): 169-77.
43. 43. Braut V, Bornstein MM, Lauber R, Buser D. Bone dimensions in the posterior mandible: A retrospective radiographic study using cone beam computed tomography. Part 1- Analysis of dentate sites. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2012; 32(2): 175.
44. 44. Belser UC, Buser D, Hess D, Schmid B, Bernard JP, Lang NP. Aesthetic implant restorations in partially edentulous patients-a critical appraisal. Periodontol 2000 1998; 17: 132-50.
45. 45. Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19: 43-61.
46. 46. Lee SL, Kim HJ, Son MK, Chung CH. Anthropometric analysis of maxillary anterior buccal bone of Korean adults using cone-beam CT. J Adv Prosthodont 2010; 2(3): 92-6.
47. 47. Capelli M, Testori T, Galli F, Zuffetti F, Motroni A, Weinstein R, vd. Implant-buccal plate distance as diagnostic parameter: a prospective cohort study on implant placement in fresh extraction sockets. J Periodontol 2013; 84(12): 1768-74.
48. 48. Fu JH, Oh TJ, Benavides E, Rudek I, Wang HL. A randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of the sandwich bone augmentation technique in increasing buccal bone thickness during implant placement surgery: I. Clinical and radiographic parameters. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 25(4): 458-67.
49. 49. Steigmann M, Wang HL. Esthetic buccal flap for correction of buccal fenestration defects during flapless immediate implant surgery. J Periodontol 2006; 77(3): 517-22.
50. 50. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral Radiology: Principles and Interpretation, 6th edn. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2008.
51. 51. Chan HL, Benavides E, Yeh CY, Fu JH, Rudek IE, Wang H-L. Risk assessment of lingual plate perforation in posterior mandibular region: a virtual implant placement study using cone-beam computed tomography. J Periodontol 2011; 82(1): 129-35.