Bone Quality and Quantity of the Mandibular Symphyseal Region in Autogenous Bone Grafting Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography: a Cross-sectional Study

Overview

Journal Head Face Med

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Dentistry
General Medicine
Orthopedics

Date 2021 Jul 13

PMID 34253223

Citations 1

Authors

Yaser Safi

Reza Amid

Mahdi Kadkhodazadeh

Hamed Mortazavi

Mohamad Payam Sharifi

Shiva Gandomi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Bone volume plays a pivotal role in the success of dental implant treatment. Autogenous bone grafts should be harvested from reliable sites in the maxillofacial region. This study sought to assess the quantity and quality of bone in the mandibular symphysis for autogenous bone graft harvesting using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated the CBCT scans of 78 adults presenting to three oral and maxillofacial radiology centers. The vertical (VD) and horizontal (HD) alveolar bone dimensions, cortical thickness (CT), and cancellous to cortical bone ratio (C/C) were measured in the interforaminal region of the mandible at the sites of central incisor to first premolar teeth. The interforaminal distance (ID) and the anterior loop length were also measured. Nonparametric statistical tests were used to analyze the data with respect to sex, age, and tooth position.

Results: The median VD, HD, and CT of the symphysis were 20.21 (3.26), 4.13 (0.37), and 2.25 (0.23) mm, respectively. The median C/C was 1.51 (0.11). The median ID was 52.24 (8.24) mm, and the median anterior loop length was 1.82 (1.06) mm. Significant differences were observed in all parameters among different teeth. Most of the measured parameters were greater in males compared with females. There were significant differences in ID, VD, and CT between different age groups.

Conclusions: The quantity and quality of the available bone in the mandibular symphysis for bone graft harvesting vary by gender, age, and harvesting site, necessitating careful preoperative evaluation.

Citing Articles

Three-dimensional assessment of the mandibular lingual foramina with implications for surgical and implant therapy: A multicentre cross-sectional study.

Padhye N, Shirsekar V, Rakhangi R, Chalakuzhy P, Joshi A J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2023; 13(2):186-190.

PMID: 36688146 PMC: 9852479. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2023.01.002.

References

Sakkas A, Wilde F, Heufelder M, Winter K, Schramm A . Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology-is it still a "gold standard"? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures. Int J Implant Dent. 2017; 3(1):23. PMC: 5453915. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-017-0084-4. View

Baldi D, Pesce P, Musante B, Pera F, Fulcheri E, Romano F . Radiological and Histomorphometric Outcomes of Homologous Bone Graft in Postextractive Implant Sites: A 6-Year Retrospective Analysis. Implant Dent. 2019; 28(5):472-477. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000920. View

Iyengar R, Cherukuri N, Patnala C . Reconstruction of Traumatic, Open Supracondylar Femoral Fractures by Autologous Fibular Strut Grafting and Cortico-Cancellous Bone Grafting-A Single-Centre, Observational Study. J Orthop Trauma. 2017; 32(2):75-81. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001023. View

Silva F, Cortez A, Moreira R, Mazzonetto R . Complications of intraoral donor site for bone grafting prior to implant placement. Implant Dent. 2006; 15(4):420-6. DOI: 10.1097/01.id.0000246225.51298.67. View

Kuzmanovic D, Payne A, Kieser J, Dias G . Anterior loop of the mental nerve: a morphological and radiographic study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003; 14(4):464-71. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00869.x. View

Mardinger O, Chaushu G, Arensburg B, Taicher S, Kaffe I . Anterior loop of the mental canal: an anatomical-radiologic study. Implant Dent. 2001; 9(2):120-5. DOI: 10.1097/00008505-200009020-00003. View

Wei X, Gu P, Hao Y, Wang J . Detection and characterization of anterior loop, accessory mental foramen, and lateral lingual foramen by using cone beam computed tomography. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 124(3):365-371. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.026. View

Zeltner M, Fluckiger L, Hammerle C, Husler J, Benic G . Volumetric analysis of chin and mandibular retromolar region as donor sites for cortico-cancellous bone blocks. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27(8):999-1004. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12746. View

Reininger D, Cobo-Vazquez C, Monteserin-Matesanz M, Lopez-Quiles J . Complications in the use of the mandibular body, ramus and symphysis as donor sites in bone graft surgery. A systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016; 21(2):e241-9. PMC: 4788806. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.20938. View

10.

Ataman-Duruel E, Duruel O, Nares S, Stanford C, Tozum T . Quantity and Quality of Intraoral Autogenous Block Graft Donor Sites with Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020; 35(4):782-788. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.8079. View

11.

Zouhary K . Bone graft harvesting from distant sites: concepts and techniques. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2010; 22(3):301-16, v. DOI: 10.1016/j.coms.2010.04.007. View

12.

Al-Ani O, Nambiar P, Ha K, Ngeow W . Safe zone for bone harvesting from the interforaminal region of the mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 24 Suppl A100:115-21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02393.x. View

13.

Pommer B, Tepper G, Gahleitner A, Zechner W, Watzek G . New safety margins for chin bone harvesting based on the course of the mandibular incisive canal in CT. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008; 19(12):1312-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01590.x. View

14.

Mohlhenrich S, Heussen N, Ayoub N, Holzle F, Modabber A . Three-dimensional evaluation of the different donor sites of the mandible for autologous bone grafts. Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 19(2):453-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-014-1235-0. View

15.

Garvin H, Ruff C . Sexual dimorphism in skeletal browridge and chin morphologies determined using a new quantitative method. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2012; 147(4):661-70. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.22036. View

16.

Altug H, Coskun A, Kamburoglu K, Zerener T, Gulen O, Sencimen M . Volumetric Evaluation of Safe Zone for Bone Harvesting From Symphysis Region by Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Implant Dent. 2016; 25(6):758-761. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000450. View

17.

Parnia F, Moslehifard E, Hafezeqoran A, Mahboub F, Mojaver-Kahnamoui H . Characteristics of anatomical landmarks in the mandibular interforaminal region: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011; 17(3):e420-5. PMC: 3476108. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.17520. View

18.

De Stavola L, Fincato A, Bressan E, Gobbato L . Results of Computer-Guided Bone Block Harvesting from the Mandible: A Case Series. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2016; 37(1):e111-e119. DOI: 10.11607/prd.2721. View

19.

Gandhi V, Lowney A, Cardarelli L, Yadav S, Tadinada A . Three-dimensional evaluation of the mandibular symphyseal region in block graft harvesting for dental implants using cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent. 2020; 50(3):217-226. PMC: 7506094. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2020.50.3.217. View

20.

Kabi S, Kar R, Samal D, Deepak K, Bhusan Kar I, Mishra N . Immediate dental implant placement with or without autogenous bone graft: A comparative study. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2020; 11(1):46-52. PMC: 7518474. DOI: 10.4103/njms.NJMS_59_19. View