Restoration-oriented anatomical analysis of alveolar bone at mandibular first molars and implications for immediate implant placement surgery: a CBCT study
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose. This cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) study aimed to analyze the anatomical characteristics of alveolar bone at mandibular first molar (MFM) and their implications for immediate implant placement surgery. Materials and methods. 100 patients with 140 MFMs were reviewed retrospectively. We first performed a 3D reconstruction of the patient’s CBCT data to determine a reference plane with ideal implant placement and orientation. The following parameters of MFM region were analyzed: mesial-distal socket size (MD-SS), buccal-lingual socket size (BL-SS), root furcation fornix to inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) distance (RF-I), interradicular bone thickness (IRB), mesial/distal root apex to the IAN distance (MRA-I/DRA-I), thickness of the buccal/lingual bone of the mesial root (MR-B/MR-L), thickness of the buccal/lingual bone of the distal root (DR-B/DR-L). Results. The MD-SS of MFM was 8.74 ± 0.76 mm, and the BL-SS was 8.26 ± 0.72 mm. The MR-B, DR-B was 1.01 ± 0.40 mm and 1.14 ± 0.50 mm, and the difference was statistically significant (P = .001). The values of the MR-L, DR-L were 2.71 ± 0.78 mm and 3.09 ± 0.73 mm, and the difference was also statistically significant (P < .001). The mean distance of RF-I was 15.68 ± 2.13 mm, and the MRA-I was 7.06 ± 2.22 mm, which was greater than that of DRA-I (6.48 ± 2.30 mm, P < .001). The IRB at 2 mm, 4 mm apical from the furcation fornix, and at apex level was 2.81 ± 0.50 mm, 3.30 ± 0.62 mm, and 4.44 ± 1.02 mm, respectively. Conclusion. There is relatively sufficient bone mass in interradicular bone in height, but an adequate width is lacking for the bone between the mesial and distal root after the extraction of the MFM for immediate implantation. The thickness of the MFM buccal bone is relative thin, especially for the mesial root.
Abstract
Purpose. This cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) study aimed to analyze the anatomical characteristics of alveolar bone at mandibular first molar (MFM) and their implications for immediate implant placement surgery. Materials and methods. 100 patients with 140 MFMs were reviewed retrospectively. We first performed a 3D reconstruction of the patient’s CBCT data to determine a reference plane with ideal implant placement and orientation. The following parameters of MFM region were analyzed: mesial-distal socket size (MD-SS), buccal-lingual socket size (BL-SS), root furcation fornix to inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) distance (RF-I), interradicular bone thickness (IRB), mesial/distal root apex to the IAN distance (MRA-I/DRA-I), thickness of the buccal/lingual bone of the mesial root (MR-B/MR-L), thickness of the buccal/lingual bone of the distal root (DR-B/DR-L). Results. The MD-SS of MFM was 8.74 ± 0.76 mm, and the BL-SS was 8.26 ± 0.72 mm. The MR-B, DR-B was 1.01 ± 0.40 mm and 1.14 ± 0.50 mm, and the difference was statistically significant (P = .001). The values of the MR-L, DR-L were 2.71 ± 0.78 mm and 3.09 ± 0.73 mm, and the difference was also statistically significant (P < .001). The mean distance of RF-I was 15.68 ± 2.13 mm, and the MRA-I was 7.06 ± 2.22 mm, which was greater than that of DRA-I (6.48 ± 2.30 mm, P < .001). The IRB at 2 mm, 4 mm apical from the furcation fornix, and at apex level was 2.81 ± 0.50 mm, 3.30 ± 0.62 mm, and 4.44 ± 1.02 mm, respectively. Conclusion. There is relatively sufficient bone mass in interradicular bone in height, but an adequate width is lacking for the bone between the mesial and distal root after the extraction of the MFM for immediate implantation. The thickness of the MFM buccal bone is relative thin, especially for the mesial root.
참고문헌 (21)
- Pjetursson BE, "Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses(FDPs)and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns(SCs)", Clin Oral Implants Res, 18(Suppl 3), pp.97~113 (2007)
- Buser D, "Implant placement post extraction in esthetic single tooth sites : when immediate, when early, when late?", Periodontol 2000, 73, pp.84~102 (2017)
- Blanco J, "Implant placement in fresh extraction sockets", Periodontol 2000, 79, pp.151~167 (2019)
- Baik UB, "Alveolar bone changes after molar protraction in young adults with missing mandibular second premolars or first molars", Angle Orthod, 92, pp.64~72 (2022)
- Saber AM, "Consequences of early extraction of compromised first permanent molar : a systematic review", BMC Oral Health, 18, pp.59~ (2018)
- ADA Division of Communications, "For the dental patient. Tooth eruption : the permanent teeth", J Am Dent Assoc, 137, pp.127~ (2006)
- Chrcanovic BR, "Immediate implant placement in the posterior mandible : a cone beam computed tomography study", Quintessence Int, 47, pp.505~514 (2016)
- Haj Yahya B, "Computed tomography for the assessment of the potential risk after implant placement in fresh extraction sites in the posterior mandible", J Oral Implantol, 47, pp.2~8 (2021)
- Sayed AJ, "Influence of inter-radicular septal bone quantity in primary stability of immediate molar implants with different length and diameter placed in mandibular region. a cone-beam computed tomography-based simulated implant study", J Pharm Bioallied Sci, 13(Suppl 1), pp.S484~S491 (2021)
- Padhye NM, "Three-dimensional alveolar bone assessment of mandibular first molars with implications for immediate implant placement", Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 40, pp.e163~e167 (2020)
- Garcia-Sanchez R, "Comparison of clinical outcomes of immediate versus delayed placement of dental implants : a systematic review and meta-analysis", Clin Oral Implants Res, 33, pp.231~277 (2022)
- Donos N, "Impact of timing of dental implant placement and loading : Summary and consensus statements of group 1-The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021", Clin Oral Implants Res, 32(Suppl 21), pp.85~92 (2021)
- Becker W, "Immediate implant placement : diagnosis, treatment planning and treatment steps", or successful outcomes, 2005, pp.33, 303~310
- Lee W, "Immediate implant placement in fresh extraction sockets", J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg, 47, pp.57~61 (2021)
- Saltzburg N, "Observed healing of an immediately placed implant in a molar site without bone replacement graft or primary closure", Compend Contin Educ Dent, 41, pp.326~330 (2020)
- Gober DD, "Flapless extraction socket healing around an immediate implant placed into a mandibular molar site without the use of regenerative materials : a case report", Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 36, pp.e26~e32 (2016)
- Sayed AJ, "Inter radicular bone dimensions in primary stability of immediate molar implants-a cone beam computed tomography retrospective analysis", Saudi Dent J, 33, pp.1091~1097 (2021)
- Ragucci GM, "Immediate implant placement in molar extraction sockets : a systematic review and meta-analysis", Int J Implant Dent, 6, pp.40~ (2020)
- Rebele SF, "Pre-extractive interradicular implant bed preparation : case presentations of a novel approach to immediate implant placement at multirooted molar sites", Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 33, pp.89~96 (2013)
- Scarano A, "Traditional postextractive implant site preparation compared with pre-extractive interradicular implant bed preparation in the mandibular molar region, using an ultrasonic device : a randomized pilot study", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 32, pp.655~660 (2017)
- Crespi R, "Immediate implant placement in sockets with asymptomatic apical periodontitis", Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 19, pp.20~27 (2017)