Imaging Science in Dentistry

  • 제50권3호
  • /
  • Pages.217-226
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 2233-7822(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-7830(eISSN)
대한영상치의학회 (Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Three-dimensional evaluation of the mandibular symphyseal region in block graft harvesting for dental implants using cone-beam computed tomography

  • Gandhi, Vaibhav (Division of Orthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut Health) ;
  • Lowney, Arianna (School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut Health) ;
  • Cardarelli, Lauren (School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut Health) ;
  • Yadav, Sumit (Division of Orthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut Health) ;
  • Tadinada, Aditya (Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut Health)
  • 투고 : 2020.03.26
  • 심사 : 2020.06.25
  • 발행 : 2020.09.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the quantity and quality of the mandibular anterior alveolar bone in terms of alveolar width, density, and total alveolar height (TAH) based on dental status, gender, and age. Additionally, this study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the available alveolar height for graft harvesting (AHGH) and examine its variability based on the aforementioned factors. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cone-beam computed tomographic study included a total of 100 subjects. On the basis of gender, dental status, and age, the scans were divided into 3 primary groups and 8 subgroups. The mandibular alveolar width and density were measured 5 mm mesial to the mental foramen bilaterally and at the midline. The TAH was measured at the midline, and the AHGH was measured as the midline distance between 5 mm apical to the root of the canines and 5 mm superior to the lower border. Results: The mandibular alveolar width was statistically similar between dentulous and edentulous patients (P>0.05). A significantly greater density was observed at the midline in edentulous patients (P<0.05). The TAH was significantly greater in edentulous male patients than in edentulous female patients (P<0.05). Dentulous and male patients had significantly greater AHGH than edentulous and female patients, respectively (P<0.05). Conclusion: Based on the data evaluated in this study, it can be concluded that the mandibular symphyseal area has adequate bone quality and quantity for bone graft harvesting for dental implant therapy.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Jensen OT, Kuhlke L, Bedard JF, White D. Alveolar segmental sandwich osteotomy for anterior maxillary vertical augmentation prior to implant placement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 64: 290-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.10.021
  2. Nkenke E, Neukam FW. Autogenous bone harvesting and grafting in advanced jaw resorption: morbidity, resorption and implant survival. Eur J Oral Implantol 2014; 7 Suppl 2: S203-17.
  3. 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: 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-017-0084-4
  4. Spin-Neto R, Stavropoulos A, Dias Pereira LA, Marcantonio E Jr, Wenzel A. Fate of autologous and fresh-frozen allogeneic block bone grafts used for ridge augmentation. A CBCT-based analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 167-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02324.x
  5. Santhanakrishnan M, Rangarao S. Mandibular tori: a source of autogenous bone graft. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2014; 18: 767-71. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-124X.147423
  6. Garg V, Giraddi GB, Roy S. Comparison of efficacy of mandible and iliac bone as autogenous bone graft for orbital floor reconstruction. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2015; 14: 291-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-014-0654-4
  7. Di Bari R, Coronelli R, Cicconetti A. Radiographic evaluation of the symphysis menti as a donor site for an autologous bone graft in pre-implant surgery. Imaging Sci Dent 2013; 43: 135-43. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2013.43.3.135
  8. 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: e241-9.
  9. Gultekin BA, Bedeloglu E, Kose TE, Mijiritsky E. Comparison of bone resorption rates after intraoral block bone and guided bone regeneration augmentation for the reconstruction of horizontally deficient maxillary alveolar ridges. Biomed Res Int 2016; 2016: 4987437.
  10. Lumetti S, Galli C, Manfredi E, Consolo U, Marchetti C, Ghiacci G, et al. Correlation between density and resorption of fresh-frozen and autogenous bone grafts. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 508328. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/508328
  11. Reininger D, Cobo-Vazquez C, Rosenberg B, Lopez-Quiles J. Alternative intraoral donor sites to the chin and mandibular body-ramus. J Clin Exp Dent 2017; 9: e1474-81.
  12. von Arx T, Kurt B. Endoral donor bone removal for autografts. A comparative clinical study of donor sites in the chin area and the retromolar region. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 1998; 108: 446-59.
  13. Nogami S, Yamauchi K, Shiiba S, Kataoka Y, Hirayama B, Takahashi T. Evaluation of the treatment modalities for neurosensory disturbances of the inferior alveolar nerve following retromolar bone harvesting for bone augmentation. Pain Med 2015; 16: 501-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/pme.12618
  14. Zeltner M, Fluckiger LB, Hammerle CH, Husler J, Benic GI. Volumetric analysis of chin and mandibular retromolar region as donor sites for cortico-cancellous bone blocks. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27: 999-1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12746
  15. Sohn DS, Ahn MR, Lee WH, Yeo DS, Lim SY. Piezoelectric osteotomy for intraoral harvesting of bone blocks. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2007; 27: 127-31.
  16. Pereira CC, Gealh WC, Meorin-Nogueira L, Garcia-Junior IR, Okamoto R. Piezosurgery applied to implant dentistry: clinical and biological aspects. J Oral Implantol 2014; 40: 401-8. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00196
  17. Cordaro L, Torsello F, Miuccio MT, di Torresanto VM, Eliopoulos D. Mandibular bone harvesting for alveolar reconstruction and implant placement: subjective and objective cross-sectional evaluation of donor and recipient site up to 4 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 1320-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02115.x
  18. Andersson L. Patient self-evaluation of intra-oral bone grafting treatment to the maxillary frontal region. Dent Traumatol 2008; 24: 164-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-9657.2007.00521.x
  19. Raghoebar GM, Meijndert L, Kalk WW, Vissink A. Morbidity of mandibular bone harvesting: a comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22: 359-65.
  20. Silva FM, Cortez AL, Moreira RW, Mazzonetto R. Complications of intraoral donor site for bone grafting prior to implant placement. Implant Dent 2006; 15: 420-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.id.0000246225.51298.67
  21. Velasco-Torres M, Padial-Molina M, Avila-Ortiz G, Garcia-Delgado R, Catena A, Galindo-Moreno P. Inferior alveolar nerve trajectory, mental foramen location and incidence of mental nerve anterior loop. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2017; 22: e630-5.
  22. Hu KS, Yun HS, Hur MS, Kwon HJ, Abe S, Kim HJ. Branching patterns and intraosseous course of the mental nerve. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65: 2288-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2007.06.658
  23. Rosa MB, Sotto-Maior BS, Machado Vde C, Francischone CE. Retrospective study of the anterior loop of the inferior alveolar nerve and the incisive canal using cone beam computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013; 28: 388-92. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2648
  24. Sahman H, Sisman Y. Anterior loop of the inferior alveolar canal: a cone-beam computerized tomography study of 494 cases. J Oral Implantol 2016; 42: 333-6. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-15-00038
  25. Jayam R, Annigeri R, Rao B, Gadiputi S, Gadiputi D. Panoramic study of mandibular basal bone height. J Orofac Sci 2015; 7: 7-10. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-8844.157358
  26. Panchbhai AS. Quantitative estimation of vertical heights of maxillary and mandibular jawbones in elderly dentate and edentulous subjects. Spec Care Dentist 2013; 33: 62-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-4505.2012.00301.x
  27. Guler AU, Sumer M, Sumer P, Bicer I. The evaluation of vertical heights of maxillary and mandibular bones and the location of anatomic landmarks in panoramic radiographs of edentulous patients for implant dentistry. J Oral Rehabil 2005; 32: 741-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01499.x
  28. Saglam AA. The vertical heights of maxillary and mandibular bones in panoramic radiographs of dentate and edentulous subjects. Quintessence Int 2002; 33: 433-8.