Evaluation of the Socket Morphology of Mandibular Molars for Immediate Implant Placement Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Imaging CBCT Evaluation of Mandibular Socket Morphology for IIP
Journal of Dental School,
Vol. 41 No. 1 (2023),
21 November 2023
,
Page 11-16
https://doi.org/10.22037/jds.v41i1.41878
Abstract
Objectives The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the dimensions of the mandibular molar socket for immediate implant placement, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging.
Methods The CBCT images of 81 patients were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In the OnDemand software, measurements were assessed by virtually positioning a regular Straumann implant (4.8 mm) in the regions of the first and second mandibular molars. The socket morphology, the buccolingual width of cancellous bone, the gap between the implant and the socket wall, the length of the root, the cross-sectional morphology of the mandible, and the height and thickness of the inter-radicular septum were all determined. The variables were compared using either the Student’s t-test or the Mann-Whitney U test.
Results Among the cross-sectional morphologies of the mandible, the undercut type (U) was found to be the most prevalent. The mean distance of the implant from the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) was found to be 6.22 mm for the first molars and 5.17 mm for the second molars. Moreover, the mean horizontal distances from the implant to the mesial and distal socket walls were 2.01 and 2.30 mm for the first molars and 2.14 and 2.59 mm for the second molars, respectively. The width of the interradicular septum across various sections was found to have a significant correlation with the position of the tooth (P<0.05).
Conclusion The majority of the samples exhibited the undercut (U type) morphology of the mandible. The interradicular septum in the second molar tooth was found to be insufficient. Overall, the assessment of pre-extraction CBCT scans and the virtual positioning of implants can be beneficial for surgical treatment planning. This approach can also aid in minimizing potential complications.
- Cone-beam computed tomography
- Dental Implants
- Immediate Dental Implant Loading
- Mandible
- Molar
How to Cite
References
Hamouda NI, Mourad SI, El-Kenawy MH, Maria OM. Immediate implant placement into fresh extraction socket in the mandibular molar sites: a preliminary study of a modified insertion technique. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17(Suppl 1):e107-16.
Sculean A, Stavropoulos A, Bosshardt DD. Self-regenerative capacity of intra-oral bone defects. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46(Suppl 21):70-81.
Altintas N, Taskesen F, Bagis B, Baltacioglu E, Cezairli B, Senel Fc. Immediate implant placement in fresh sockets versus implant placement in healed bone for full-arch fixed prostheses with conventional loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;45(2):226-31.
Werbitt MJ, Goldberg PV. The immediate implant bone preservation and bone regeneration. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent.1992;12(3):206-17.
Ragucci GM, Elnayef B, Criado-Cámara E, Del Amo FS-L, Hernández-Alfaro F. Immediate implant placement in molar extraction sockets: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent. 2020;6(1):40.
Hattingh A, De Bruyn H, Vandeweghe S. A retrospective study on ultra‐wide diameter dental implants for immediate molar replacement. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019;21(5):879-87.
Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Dental implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets versus healed sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015;43(1):16-41.
McAllister BS, Haghighat K. Bone augmentation techniques. J Periodontol. 2007;78(3):377-96.
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):e163-7.
Rominger JW, Triplett RG. The use of guided tissue regeneration to improve implant osseointegration. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994;52(2):106-12.
Scarfe WC, Levin MD, Gane D, Farman AG. Use of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. Int J Dent. 2009;2009: 634567.
Sayed AJ, Shaikh SS, Shaikh SY, Hussain MA. Inter radicular bone dimensions in primary stability of immediate molar implants–a cone beam computed tomography retrospective analysis. Saudi Dent J. 2021;33(8):1091-7.
Tettamanti L, Andrisani C, Bassi MA, Vinci R, Silvestre-Rangil J, Tagliabue A, et al. Post extractive implant: evaluation of the critical aspects. Oral Implantol (Rome). 2017;10(2):119-28.
Ketabi M, Deporter D, Atenafu EG. A systematic review of outcomes following immediate molar implant placement based on recently published studies. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18(6):1084-94.
Guarnieri R, Di Nardo D, Di Giorgio G, Miccoli G, Testarelli L. Immediate non-submerged implants with laser-microtextured collar placed in the inter-radicular septum of mandibular molar extraction sockets associated to GBR: results at 3-year. J Clin Exp Dent. 2020;12(4):e363-70.
Hayacibara RM, Gonçalves CS, Garcez‐Filho J, Magro‐Filho O, Esper H, Hayacibara MF. The success rate of immediate implant placement of mandibular molars: a clinical and radiographic retrospective evaluation between 2 and 8 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(7):806-11.
Hattingh AC, De Bruyn H, Ackermann A, Vandeweghe S. Immediate placement of ultrawide-diameter implants in molar sockets: description of a recommended technique. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2018;38(1):17-23.
Fugazzotto PA, Hains FO. Immediate implant placement in posterior areas: the mandibular arch. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2012;33(7):494-6.
Sammartino G, Marenzi G, Citarella R, Ciccarelli R, Wang HL. Analysis of the occlusal stress transmitted to the inferior alveolar nerve by an osseointegrated threaded fixture. J Periodontol. 2008;79(9):1735-44.
- Abstract Viewed: 188 times
- PDF Downloaded: 72 times