Positioning Errors of Dental Implants and Their Associations with Adjacent Structures and Anatomical Variations: A CBCT-based Study

Overview

Journal Imaging Sci Dent

Specialty Radiology

Date 2021 Jan 7

PMID 33409136

Citations 5

Authors

Beatriz Ribeiro Ribas

Eduarda Helena Leandro Nascimento

Deborah Queiroz Freitas

Andrea Dos Anjos Pontual

Maria Luiza Dos Anjos Pontual

Danyel Elias Cruz Perez

Flavia Maria Moraes Ramos-Perez

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the prevalence of dental implants positioning errors and their associations with adjacent structures and anatomical variations by means of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Materials And Methods: CBCT images of 207 patients (584 dental implants) were evaluated by 2 oral radiologists. The distance between the implant and the adjacent teeth/implants was measured and classified as adequate (≥1.5 mm and ≥3 mm, respectively) or inadequate. The presence of thread exposure, cortical perforation, implant dehiscence, implant penetration into adjacent structures, and anatomical variations was also recorded. The incisor canal diameter and the depth of the concavity of the submandibular fossa were measured in order to evaluate their correlations with the frequency of implant penetration in these structures. Descriptive analyses, the Fisher exact test, and Spearman correlation analysis were performed (α=0.05).

Results: The overall prevalence of positioning errors was 82.9%. The most common error was the inadequate distance between the implant and the adjacent teeth/implants. The presence of anatomical variations did not significantly influence the overall prevalence of errors (>0.05). There was a positive correlation between the diameter of the incisor canal and the frequency of implant penetration in this structure (r=0.232, <0.05).

Conclusion: There was a high prevalence of dental implant positioning errors, and positioning errors were not associated with the presence of anatomical variations. Professionals should be aware of the space available for implant placement during the preoperative planning stage.

Citing Articles

Incidental Findings Following Dental Implant Procedures in the Mandible: A New Post-Processing CBCT Software Analysis.

Garrote M, Alencar A, Estrela C, Estrela L, Bueno M, Guedes O Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(17).

PMID: 39272693 PMC: 11394666. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14171908.

Prevalence of dental implant positioning errors: A cross-sectional study.

Rizzo G, Prado M, Rigo L Imaging Sci Dent. 2023; 52(4):343-350.

PMID: 36605853 PMC: 9807798. DOI: 10.5624/isd.20220059.

Screw-and-cement-retained prosthesis versus cement-retained prosthesis: Which is more appropriate for the upper premolar area?.

Park D, Kim J, Lee J, Kim H, Sim H, Lee H J Dent Sci. 2022; 17(4):1553-1558.

PMID: 36299302 PMC: 9588807. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2022.04.011.

The occurrence of dental implant malpositioning and related factors: A cross-sectional cone-beam computed tomography survey.

Safi Y, Amid R, Zadbin F, Ahsaie M, Mortazavi H Imaging Sci Dent. 2021; 51(3):251-260.

PMID: 34621652 PMC: 8479431. DOI: 10.5624/isd.20200331.

Long term clinical result of implant induced injury on the adjacent tooth.

Yi Y, Park I, Ku J, Jo D, Han J, Kim Y Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):7913.

PMID: 33846470 PMC: 8041840. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-87062-9.

References

de-Azevedo-Vaz S, Vasconcelos K, Neves F, Sousa Melo S, Campos P, Haiter-Neto F . Detection of periimplant fenestration and dehiscence with the use of two scan modes and the smallest voxel sizes of a cone-beam computed tomography device. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012; 115(1):121-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2012.10.003. View

Hickin M, Shariff J, Jennette P, Finkelstein J, Papapanou P . Incidence and Determinants of Dental Implant Failure: A Review of Electronic Health Records in a U.S. Dental School. J Dent Educ. 2017; 81(10):1233-1242. DOI: 10.21815/JDE.017.080. View

de Oliveira-Santos C, Rubira-Bullen I, Monteiro S, Leon J, Jacobs R . Neurovascular anatomical variations in the anterior palate observed on CBCT images. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 24(9):1044-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02497.x. View

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):776-782. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12511. View

Vela X, Mendez V, Rodriguez X, Segala M, Tarnow D . Crestal bone changes on platform-switched implants and adjacent teeth when the tooth-implant distance is less than 1.5 mm. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2012; 32(2):149-55. View

Camargo I, Van Sickels J . Surgical complications after implant placement. Dent Clin North Am. 2014; 59(1):57-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2014.08.003. View

Tyndall D, Price J, Tetradis S, Ganz S, Hildebolt C, Scarfe W . 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2012.03.005. View

Fontenele R, Nascimento E, Vasconcelos T, Noujeim M, Freitas D . Magnitude of cone beam CT image artifacts related to zirconium and titanium implants: impact on image quality. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018; 47(6):20180021. PMC: 6196050. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20180021. View

Oztel M, Bilski W, Bilski A . Risk Factors associated with Dental Implant Failure: A Study of 302 Implants placed in a Regional Center. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2017; 18(8):705-709. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2111. View

10.

Bohner L, Mukai E, Oderich E, Porporatti A, Pacheco-Pereira C, Tortamano P . Comparative analysis of imaging techniques for diagnostic accuracy of peri-implant bone defects: a meta-analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2017; 124(4):432-440.e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2017.06.119. View

11.

Wilson J, Johnson T . Frequency of adequate mesiodistal space and faciolingual alveolar width for implant placement at anterior tooth positions. J Am Dent Assoc. 2019; 150(9):779-787. DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2019.05.003. View

12.

Huang R, Cochran D, Cheng W, Lin M, Fan W, Sung C . Risk of lingual plate perforation for virtual immediate implant placement in the posterior mandible: A computer simulation study. J Am Dent Assoc. 2015; 146(10):735-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2015.04.027. View

13.

Gaeta-Araujo H, Oliveira-Santos N, Mancini A, Oliveira M, Oliveira-Santos C . Retrospective assessment of dental implant-related perforations of relevant anatomical structures and inadequate spacing between implants/teeth using cone-beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Investig. 2020; 24(9):3281-3288. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03205-8. View

14.

Tarnow D, Cho S, Wallace S . The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol. 2000; 71(4):546-9. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2000.71.4.546. View

15.

Nascimento E, Oliveira M, Freitas D . Incidental findings of implant complications on postimplantation CBCTs: A cross-sectional study-Methodological issues. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018; 21(1):11-12. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12690. View

16.

Silva J, Alencar A, da Rocha S, Lopes L, Estrela C . Three-dimensional image contribution for evaluation of operative procedural errors in endodontic therapy and dental implants. Braz Dent J. 2012; 23(2):127-34. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402012000200007. View

17.

Chan H, Benavides E, Yeh C, Fu J, Rudek I, Wang H . Risk assessment of lingual plate perforation in posterior mandibular region: a virtual implant placement study using cone-beam computed tomography. J Periodontol. 2010; 82(1):129-35. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2010.100313. View

18.

Bornstein M, Scarfe W, Vaughn V, Jacobs R . Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29 Suppl:55-77. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.4. View

19.

Parnia F, Moslehi Fard E, Mahboub F, Hafezeqoran A, Gavgani F . Tomographic volume evaluation of submandibular fossa in patients requiring dental implants. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010; 109(1):e32-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.08.035. View

20.

do Nascimento E, Pontual M, Anjos Pontual A, Perez D, Figueiroa J, Frazao M . Assessment of the anterior loop of the mandibular canal: A study using cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent. 2016; 46(2):69-75. PMC: 4925653. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2016.46.2.69. View