Dataset Information

Risk assessment of labial bone perforation in the anterior mandibular region: a virtual immediate implant placement study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This study investigated the prevalence of labial bone perforation (LBP) related to the associated anatomic factors in anterior mandibular region using a virtual immediate implant placement procedure.

Methods

Series qualified CBCT images of 149 participants (894 teeth) were selected to analyze the assigned anatomical parameters, including concavity depth, concavity angle, torque, and deep bone thickness. Four classes of crestal and radicular dentoalveolar bone phenotypes (CRDAPs) of mandibular anterior teeth were categorized according to the thickness of dentoalveolar bone at both crestal and radicular zones. Data were adjusted for categorical (gender and CRDAP) and continuous (age, cavity angle, cavity depth, and deep bone thickness) variables using a multivariable logistic regression analysis with generalized estimating equation method.

Results

The overall probability of LBP after virtual implant placement was 21.6%. There is statistically significant higher prevalence of LBP at canine (28.5%) and CRDAP class II (29.2%) regions (p < 0.001). After adjusting confounding variables, CRDAP class II and class IV regions are more likely to have LBP when compared with CRDAP class I (control) regions (p < 0.01). The risk of LBP at canine site is 6.31 times more likely than at the central incisor (control) (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Using a virtual immediate implant placement technique, the prevalence of LBP is significantly higher at the mandibular canine site and thin radicular dentoalveolar phenotype in the anterior mandibular region.

SUBMITTER: Tsai YC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8310813 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of using a bone substitute material (BSM) in the fixture-socket gap in patients undergoing tooth extraction and immediate implant placement.Materials and methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs were screened for eligibility, and data were extracted by two authors independently. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using Cochrane's ROB tool 2.0. Primary outcomes were implant failure, overall complications, and soft-tissue esthetics. Secondary outcomes were vertical buccal bone resorption, vertical interproximal bone resorption, horizontal buccal bone resorption, and mid-buccal mucosal recession. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects model with generic inverse variance weighing. GRADE was used to grade the certainty of the evidence.ResultsAfter screening 19 544 potentially eligible references, 20 RCTs were included in this review, with a total of 848 patients (916 sites). Most included RCTs were deemed of some concerns (53%) or at low (38%) risk of bias, except for overall complications (high ROB). Implant failure did not differ significantly RR = 0.92 (confidence intervals [CI] 0.34 to 2.46) between using a BSM compared with not using a BSM (NoBSM). BSM use resulted in less horizontal buccal bone resorption (MD = -0.52 mm [95% CI -0.74 to -0.30]), a higher esthetic score (MD = 1.49 [95% CI 0.46 to 2.53]), but also more complications (RR = 3.50 [95% CI 1.11 to 11.1] compared with NoBSM. Too few trials compared types of BSMs against each other to allow for pooled analyses. The certainty of the evidence was considered moderate for all outcomes except implant failure (low), overall complications (very low), and vertical interproximal bone resorption (very low).ConclusionBSM use during immediate implant placement reduces horizontal buccal bone resorption and improves the periimplant soft-tissue esthetics. Although BSM use increases the risk of predominantly minor complications.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Immediate implants are frequently employed in the anterior maxillary area. However, the installation of dental implants simultaneously with tooth extraction can also provide with benefits in the posterior areas with a reduction in time prior the recovery of the masticatory function. Results previously reported in the literature show high-survival and success rates for implants placed in extraction sockets in molar areas; however, this topic has received limited systematic analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Electronic and manual literature searches were performed by two independent reviewers in several data-bases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, for articles up to January 2019 reporting outcomes of immediate implants placed in molar areas. Primary outcomes included survival and success rates, as well as marginal bone loss. Secondary outcomes included the influence of implant position, type of implant connection, grafting protocol, flap or flapless approach, implant diameter, surgical phase, presence of buccal plate, and loading protocol. RESULTS:Twenty studies provided information on the survival rate, with a total sample of 1.106 implants. The weighted mean survival rate of immediate implants after 1 year of follow-up was 96.6%, and the success rate was 93.3%. On the other hand, marginal bone loss was 1.29 ± 0.24 mm. Secondary outcomes demonstrated that grafting the gap and the loading protocol have an effect on survival and success rates. Similarly, the presence or absence of the buccal bone affect crestal bone levels. Meta-analysis of 4 investigations showed a weighted mean difference of 0.31 mm ± 0.8 IC 95% (0.15-0.46) more marginal bone loss at immediate implant placement versus implants in healed sites (p < 0.001) I2 = 15.2%. CONCLUSION:In selected scenarios, immediate implant placement in molar extraction socket might be considered a predictable technique as demonstrated by a high survival and success rates, with minimal marginal bone loss.