Evaluation of Alveolar Bone on Dental Implant Treatment using Cone Beam Computed Tomography

Edward Dwingadi, Yuniarti Soeroso, Robert Lessang, Menik Priaminiarti

Abstract


Objective:To observe the outcomes of dental implant treatment based on the evaluation of bone conditions using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). Material and Methods:A total of 31 dental implants were collected for the present study. Subsequently, mesial and distal bone losses were examined, while buccal and lingual bone thickness were measured at 7 levels. Evaluation and interpretation of CBCT results was performed by 3 independent examiners. Results:The average of mesial bone loss was 1.08 mm and 1.36 mm on distal bone. Every dental implant had lingual/palatal bone on level 1 to 3, only 1 (6.5%) didn’t have bone on level 4, 3 implants (9.7%) had no bone at level 5 and 6, and 22 implants (74.2%) had no bone at level 7/implant platform. There were 8 implants (25.8%) didn’t have buccal bone at level 7, only 1 implant (3.2%) didn’t have buccal bone at level 2,4,5 and 6, and there were 2 implants (6.5%) had no buccal bone on level 3. Dehiscence / fenestration can be seen on 90% of the implant subjects. Conclusion:These bone loss condition could be consequence of several factors such as infection, diagnosis, treatment plan, and operator’s surgery skills. The implants that placed without CBCT could lead to operator miscalculation on bone condition, therefore in moderate to advanced cases, the use of CBCT should be mandatory for treatment plan.

Keywords


Dental Implants; Dental Implantation; Diagnostic Imaging.

Full Text:

PDF

References


den Hartog L, Slater JJ, Vissink A, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM. Treatment outcome of immediate, early and conventional single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone: A systematic review to survival, bone level, soft-tissue, aesthetics and patient satisfaction. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35(12):1073-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051x.2008.01330.x

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):776-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12511

Papaspyrikados P, Chen C-J, Singh M, Weber H-P, Gallucci GO. Success criteria in implant dentistry: A systematic review. J Dent Res 2012; 91(3):242-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034511431252

Albrektsson T, Buser D, Sennerby L. Crestal bone loss and oral implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;1 4(6):783-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12013

Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implant a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986; 1(1):11-25.

Takuma T, Oishi K, Manabe T, Yoneda S, Nagata T. Buccal bone resorption around posterior implants after surgery: A 1-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29(3):634-41. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3018

Degidi M, Nardi D, Daprile G, Piattelli A. Buccal bone plate in the immediately placed and restored maxillary single implant: A 7-year retrospective study using computed tomography. Implant Dent 2012; 21(1):62-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e31823fce9f

ArRejaie A, Al-Harbi F, Alagl AS, Hassan KS. Platelet-rich plasma gel combined with bovine-derived xenograft for the treatment of dehiscence around immediately placed conventionally loaded dental implants in humans: Cone beam computed tomography and three-dimensional image evaluation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016; 31(2):431-8. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3859

Kwon JY, Kim YS, Kim CW. Assessing changes of peri-implant bone using digital subtraction radiography. J Korean Acad Prostodontic 2001; 39(3):273-81.

Mallya S, Tetradis S. Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: Anatomy. In: White SC, Pharoah MJ (Eds.) Oral Radiology: Principles and Interpretation. 7th ed. St Loius: Elsevier / Mosby, 2014. p. 214-220.

Cortes ARG, Gomes AFAM, MJAPS, Arita ES. Evaluation of linear tomography and cone beam computed tomography accuracy in measuring ridge bone width for planning implant placement. Braz J Oral Sci 2012; 11(2):116-9.

Salvi GE, Lang NP. Diagnostic parameters for monitoring peri-implant conditions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19(Suppl):116-27.

Joshi D. Long term facial alveolar bone changes associated with endosseous implants in the anterior maxilla. [Thesis]. Louisville: University of Louisville, 2016. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e272/167062c885cc76e1f9df1fcf99f81e6f63f9.pdf. [Accessed on December 18, 2018].

Esau T, Puryer J, McNally L, O’Sullivan D. Patient understanding and recall of risks and complications of dental implant treatment following informed consent. Faculty Dent J 2016; 7(1):16-22. https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsfdj.2016.16

Kamburoğlu K, Murat S, Kılıç C, Yüksel S, Avsever H, Farman A, Scarfe WC. Accuracy of CBCT images in the assessment of buccal marginal alveolar peri-implant defects: Effect of field of view. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014; 43(4):20130332. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20130332

Fienitz T, Schwarz F, Ritter L, Dreiseidler T, Becker J, Rothamel D. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography in assessing peri-implant bone defect regeneration: A histologically controlled study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23(7):882-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02232.x

French D, Larjava H, Ofec R. Retrospective cohort study of 4591 straumann implants in private practice setting, with up to 10-year follow-up. Part 1 : Multivariate survival analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26(11):1345-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12463

Aimetti M, Ferrarotti F, Mariani GM, Ghelardoni C, Romano F. Soft tissue and crestal bone changes around implants with platform-switched abutments placed nonsubmerged at subcrestal position: A 2-year clinical and radiographic evaluation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015; 30(6):1369-77. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4017

Moraschini V, Poubel LAC, Ferreira VF, Barboza ES. Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 44(3):377-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2014.10.023

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):956-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12664

Vera C, Kok IJ De, Chen W, Reside G, Tyndall MSD, Cooper LF. Evaluation of post-implant buccal bone resorption using cone beam computed tomography: A clinical pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27(5):1249-57.

Correa LR, Spin-Neto R, Stavropoulos A, Schropp L, da Silveira HE, Wenzel A. Planning of dental implant size with digital panoramic radiographs, CBCT-generated panoramic images, and CBCT cross-sectional images. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 25(6):690-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12126

Ji TJ, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Roe P, Lozada JL. Immediate loading of maxillary and mandibular implant- supported fixed complete dentures: A 1- to 10-year retrospective study. J Oral Implantol 2012; 38(Spec No):469-76. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00027

Jemt T, Karouni M, Abitbol J, Zouiten O, Antoun H. A retrospective study on 1592 consecutively performed operations in one private referral clinic. Part II: Peri-implantitis and implant failures. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017; 19(3):413-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12481

Jemt T. A retro-prospective effectiveness study on 3448 implant operations at one referral clinic: A multifactorial analysis. Part II: Clinical factors associated to peri-implantitis surgery and late implant failures. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017; 19(6):972-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12538

Melo MD, Shafie H, Obeid G. Implant survival rates for oral and maxillofacial surgery residents: a retrospective clinical review with analysis of resident level of training. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 64(8):1185-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2006.04.014




PBOCI IS A MEMBER OF CROSSREF AND ALL THE CONTENT OF ITS JOURNALS ARE LINKED BY DOIS THROUGH CROSSREF.