21Sep 2018

IMMEDIATE IMPLANT PLACEMENT PLANNING IN MANDIBULAR POSTERIOR REGION USING CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY.

  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

Background/aim: Dental Implant therapy has become an integral part of daily practice due to its high successrate but surgical mishaps, complications and damage of vital anatomical structures do occur. If proper diagnosis and treatment planning is done then implant surgeries can proceed uneventfully and can fulfil both the functional and aesthetic demands after osseointegration. The aim of this study was to determine the longest upright and tilted implants allowed to be placed in three posterior mandibular teeth areas in case of Immediate Implant Placement (IIP) with respect to a safe distance from the inferior alveolar canal (IAC) and the submandibular fossa, using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Method: The 209 CBCT scanswere reviewed retrospectively of the subjects. The following were measured: distance from the tooth apex to the IAC, buccolingual width of the mandible which was determined at the axial section nearest to the middle of tooth?s mesiodistal width, classification of mandibular cross-sectional morphology as per Sammartino et al (2008) and Chan H-L (2011),upright and tilted implant placement simulation, tilting anglethat allowed placement of the longest implant and availability of buccal and lingual cortical plate. Results: As we progress posteriorly i.e., from second Premolar (PM) to Second Molar (M) the distance from tooth apex to IAC decreases significantly. The mean value between the teeth is increasing significantly. The mandibular cross-sectional ridge types are U (undercut), C (convergent); P (parallel) had a prevalence rate of 65%, 23%, and 14% respectively. The available width for both buccal and lingual cortical plate increased significantly from 2PM to 2M. For the moreposterior regions the tilting angle was greater in orderto place the longest implant without causing any lingual perforation and damage to vital anatomic structures like the IAC. Conclusions: Within the scope of this study, we have concluded that the distance from the tooth apex to IAC decreases in molar region as compared to premolar region. Whereas, buccolingual width of the mandible is greater in molars as compared to the premolars. Mandible has a tendency to be classified as ?undercut? in more posterior regions. Therefore, there is a need for careful attention when the placement of an immediate implant is planned in this area. Alternative treatment option to avoid the violation of the lingual plate perforation includes the use of implant tilting. More posterior regions resulted in a restriction to place shorter implants in comparison to more anterior regions.


  1. 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: 1317?1329.
  2. Chrcanovic BR, Custodio AL. Mandibular fractures associated with endosteal implants. Oral MaxillofacSurg 2009;13: 231?238.
  3. Chan HL, Brooks SL, Fu JH, Yeh CY, Rudek I, Wang HL. Cross-sectional analysis of the mandibular lingual concavity using cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22: 201?206
  4. Chrcanovic BR, Martins MD, Wennerberg A. Immediate placement of implantsinto infected sites: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res2015;17 (Suppl 1):e1?e16.
  5. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Dental implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets versus healed sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2015;43: 16?41.
  6. Greenstein G, Cavallaro J, Tarnow D. Practical application of anatomy for the dental implant surgeon. J Periodontol 2008;79: 1833?1846.
  7. Bartling, K. Freeman, and R. A. Kraut, ?The incidence of altered sensation of the mental nerve after mandibular implant placement,? Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 1999; 57(12): 1408?1410.
  8. Kubilius, G. Sabalys, G. Juodzbalys, and V. Gedrimas, ?Traumatic damage to the inferior alveolar nerve sustained in course of dental implantation. Possibility of prevention,? Stomatologija 2004; 6(4) :106?110
  9. Wismeijer, M. A. J. Van Waas, J. I. J. F. Vermeeren, and W. Kalk. Patients? perception of sensory disturbances of the mental nerve before and after implant surgery: a prospective study of 110 patients. The British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 1997; 35(4) 254?259.
  10. van Steenberghe, U. Lekholm, C. Bolender et al. Applicability of osseointegrated oral implants in the rehabilitation of partial edentulism: a prospective multicenter study on 558 fixtures. The International Journal of Oral and MaxillofacialImplants 1990; 5(3) 272?281.
  11. Lofthag-Hansen S., Gr?ndahl K., OdontDr, Ekestubbe A. Cone-Beam CT for Preoperative Implant Planning in the Posterior Mandible: Visibility of Anatomic Landmarks. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2009;11(3):246-255.
  12. Ekestubbe A., Gr?ndahl K., Ekholm S., Johansson P.E., Gr?ndahl H-G. Low-dose tomographic techniques for dental implant planning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996; 11:650?659.
  13. Ludlow J.B., Davies-Ludlow L.E., Brooks S.L., Howerton W.B. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i CAT. DentomaxillofacRadiol 2006; 35:219?226.
  14. Sammartino, G., Marenzi, G., Citarella, R., Ciccarelli, R. &Wang, H.L. Analysis of the occlusal stress transmitted to the inferior alveolar nerve by an osseointegrated threaded fixture. Journal of Periodontology 2008; 79: 1735?1744.
  15. Froum S. J. Immediate placement of implants into extraction sockets: rationale,outcomes, technique. Alpha Omegan 2005; 98: 20?35.
  16. Chrcanovic BR, Machado V, Gjelvold B, Immediate implant placement in the posterior mandible: A cone beam computed tomography study. Quintessence international 2016;47(6): 505-514
  17. 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: 175?184.
  18. Lin MH, Mau LP, Cochran DL, Shieh YS, Huang PH, Huang RY. Risk assessment of inferior alveolar nerve injury for immediate implant placement in the posterior mandible: a virtual implant placement study. J Dent 2014; 42: 263?270.
  19. Misch C. E, Bidez M.W. Implant-protected occlusion: a biomechanical rationale Compendium 1994; 15:1330, 1332, 1334.
  20. [20] Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Tilted versus axially placed dental implants: A meta-analysis. J Dent 2015; 43: 149?170.
  21. [21] Gjelvold B, Sohrabi M, Chrcanovic BR. Angled screw channel: an alternative to cemented single-implant restorations. A report of three cases. Int J Prosthodont 2016; 29: 74?76.

[ManjariChaudhary, Ajay Bhoosreddy, ApurvaPatil, AkankshaBhandari , AshniChatterjee, YashAggarwal and ShuddhodhanGaikwad. (2018); IMMEDIATE IMPLANT PLACEMENT PLANNING IN MANDIBULAR POSTERIOR REGION USING CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY. Int. J. of Adv. Res. 6 (Sep). 544-553] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com


Dr. MANJARI G. CHAUDHARY


DOI:


Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/7709      
DOI URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/7709