open access
Anatomic considerations for immediate implant placement in the mandibular molar region: a cross-sectional study using cone-beam computed tomography
, 3, 3, 3
Affiliations- Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Division of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
open access
Abstract
Background: There is concern regarding immediate implantation in the molar region because of discrepancy between socket size and inserted implant diameter. The purpose of this study was to assess the local anatomy of the posterior mandibular region in relation to immediate implant placement using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Materials and methods: Using CBCT imaging data, 204 mandibular first molars and 201 mandibular second molars were assessed for the interradicular and alveolar bone dimensions, tooth sizes and proximity to vital structures. The cross-sectional mandibular shape and root configuration of these molars were determined.
Results: Distances to the inferior alveolar canal (IAC) from the root apices of the first molar were significantly greater than the second molar. Up to 14.5% of second molars had less than 10 mm of vertical bone height between the IAC and furcation bone crest. Interradicular bone width of < 3 mm was found in 57% of second molars. All first molars in this study had two to three roots while 16% of second molars presented with a single root. The prevalent mandible shape at the first and second molars was the parallel and undercut ridges, respectively.
Conclusions: The mandibular second molars from samples of a Southeast Asian population presented with greater anatomical difficulties for immediate implant placement which include absent or inadequate interradicular bone thickness, higher incidence of unfavourable mandible shape and increased proximity to vital structures.
Abstract
Background: There is concern regarding immediate implantation in the molar region because of discrepancy between socket size and inserted implant diameter. The purpose of this study was to assess the local anatomy of the posterior mandibular region in relation to immediate implant placement using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Materials and methods: Using CBCT imaging data, 204 mandibular first molars and 201 mandibular second molars were assessed for the interradicular and alveolar bone dimensions, tooth sizes and proximity to vital structures. The cross-sectional mandibular shape and root configuration of these molars were determined.
Results: Distances to the inferior alveolar canal (IAC) from the root apices of the first molar were significantly greater than the second molar. Up to 14.5% of second molars had less than 10 mm of vertical bone height between the IAC and furcation bone crest. Interradicular bone width of < 3 mm was found in 57% of second molars. All first molars in this study had two to three roots while 16% of second molars presented with a single root. The prevalent mandible shape at the first and second molars was the parallel and undercut ridges, respectively.
Conclusions: The mandibular second molars from samples of a Southeast Asian population presented with greater anatomical difficulties for immediate implant placement which include absent or inadequate interradicular bone thickness, higher incidence of unfavourable mandible shape and increased proximity to vital structures.
Keywords
cone-beam computed tomography, immediate dental implant loading, mandible, molar
About this articleTitle
Anatomic considerations for immediate implant placement in the mandibular molar region: a cross-sectional study using cone-beam computed tomography
Journal
Issue
Article type
Original article
Pages
732-738
Published online
2021-06-14
Page views
5605
Article views/downloads
1284
DOI
Pubmed
Bibliographic record
Folia Morphol 2022;81(3):732-738.
Keywords
cone-beam computed tomography
immediate dental implant loading
mandible
molar
Authors
J. Y. Ho
W. C. Ngeow
D. Lim
C. S. Wong
References (16)- Agostinelli C, Agostinelli A, Berardini M, et al. Radiological evaluation of the dimensions of lower molar alveoli. Implant Dent. 2018; 27(3): 271–275.
- Braut V, Bornstein MM, Lauber R, et al. 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(2): 175–184.
- Chan HL, Brooks SL, Fu JH, et al. Cross-sectional analysis of the mandibular lingual concavity using cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 22(2): 201–206.
- Charan J, Biswas T. How to calculate sample size for different study designs in medical research? Indian J Psychol Med. 2013; 35(2): 121–126.
- Chrcanovic BR, de Carvalho Machado V, Gjelvold B. Immediate implant placement in the posterior mandible: A cone beam computed tomography study. Quintessence Int. 2016; 47(6): 505–514.
- Froum S, Casanova L, Byrne S, et al. Risk assessment before extraction for immediate implant placement in the posterior mandible: a computerized tomographic scan study. J Periodontol. 2011; 82(3): 395–402.
- Haj Yahya B, Chaushu G, Hamzani Y. Computed tomography for the assessment of the potential risk after implant placement in fresh extraction sites in the posterior mandible. J Oral Implantol. 2021; 47(1): 2–8.
- Huang RY, Cochran DL, Cheng WC, et al. 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): 735–742.
- Lin MH, Mau LP, Cochran DL, et al. Risk assessment of inferior alveolar nerve injury for immediate implant placement in the posterior mandible: a virtual implant placement study. J Dent. 2014; 42(3): 263–270.
- Matarasso S, Salvi GE, Iorio Siciliano V, et al. Dimensional ridge alterations following immediate implant placement in molar extraction sites: a six-month prospective cohort study with surgical re-entry. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20(10): 1092–1098.
- Nagarajan A, Perumalsamy R, Thyagarajan R, et al. Diagnostic imaging for dental implant therapy. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2014; 4(Suppl 2): 4.
- Padhye NM, Shirsekar VU, Bhatavadekar NB. Three-Dimensional Alveolar Bone Assessment of Mandibular First Molars with Implications for Immediate Implant Placement. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2020; 40(4): e163–e167.
- Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 17(Suppl 2): 35–51.
- Schwartz-Arad D, Chaushu G. The ways and wherefores of immediate placement of implants into fresh extraction sites: a literature review. J Periodontol. 1997; 68(10): 915–923.
- Smith RB, Tarnow DP. Classification of molar extraction sites for immediate dental implant placement: technical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013; 28(3): 911–916.
- Wang TY, Kuo PJ, Fu E, et al. Risks of angled implant placement on posterior mandible buccal/lingual plated perforation: A virtual immediate implant placement study using CBCT. J Dent Sci. 2019; 14(3): 234–240.
