Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2021) – 132.50
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI (2021) – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2021) – 82%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download PDF

Dental and Medical Problems

2018, vol. 55, nr 3, July-September, p. 233–240

doi: 10.17219/dmp/94303

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Evaluation of anatomical structures and variations in the maxilla and the mandible before dental implant treatment

Ocena struktur anatomicznych i ich zmienności w szczęce oraz żuchwie przed leczeniem implantologicznym

Tolga Genç1,B, Onurcem Duruel1,D, Hüseyin Burak Kutlu1,B,E, Erhan Dursun1,B,E, Erdem Karabulut2,C, Tolga Fikret Tözüm3,A,C,E,F

1 Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey

2 Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey

3 Department of Periodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, United States

Abstract

Background. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) allows a detailed visualization of the anatomic structures of the jaw. There have been presented variations of the anatomic structures between genders after evaluating the structures in detail.
Objectives. The aim of this study was to investigate the anatomic variations of the jaws according to gender and age in an effort to avoid complications during implant surgeries.
Material and Methods. In this retrospective study, a total of 159 scans (87 of the maxilla, 72 of the mandible) were evaluated in order to analyze the effect of age and gender on these anatomic variations.
Results. According to statistical analysis, gender affected the crestal dimensions above the mandibular canal and sinus mucosal thickening. The mean value of the width of the mandibular canal, the distance between the mandibular canal and the superior border of the mandible, the distance between the mandibular canal and the inferior border of the mandible, the diameter of the mental foramen, the distance between the mental foramen and the inferior border of the mandible, and the distance between the lingual foramen and the inferior border of the mandible were significantly greater in female patients than in male subjects (p < 0.001). However, sinus mucosal thickening and the diameter of the posterior superior alveolar artery (PSAA) were significantly greater in males as compared to females (p < 0.001). While the configuration of the nasopalatine canal was funnel-shaped in female patients, this configuration was found to be cylinder-shaped in male subjects. A high prevalence of sinus septa (43.7%) and PSAA (87.4%) was detected in the scans.
Conclusion. When planning dental implants, radiographic examinations, alongside clinical examinations, have become necessary to reduce the risk of implant surgery failure and complications. The CBCT imaging is a valuable tool to determine the anatomic structures before carrying out any surgeries, including implant surgery. Gender affects anatomical variations and dimensions significantly, even when they are not affected by age. Large population focused and multicenter studies may provide a better understanding of the need to evaluate the anatomical structures in detail.

Key words

dental implant, mandible, maxilla, anatomy, cone beam computed tomography

Słowa kluczowe

implant stomatologiczny, żuchwa, szczęka, anatomia, stożkowa tomografia komputerowa

References (30)

  1. Asawa N, Bulbule N, Kakade D, Shah R. Angulated implants: An alternative to bone augmentation and sinus lift procedure: Systematic review. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(3):ZE10–13.
  2. Güncü GN, Yıldırım YD, Wang HL, Tözüm TF. Location of posterior superior alveolar artery and evaluation of maxillary sinus anatomy with computerized tomography: A clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(10):1164–1167.
  3. Jensen OT, Shulman LB, Block MS, Iacono VJ. Report of the sinus consensus conference of 1996. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998;13(Suppl):11–45.
  4. Leite GM, Lana JP, de Carvalho Machado V, Manzi FR, Souza PE, Horta MC. Anatomic variations and lesions of the mandibular canal detected by cone beam computed tomography. Surg Radiol Anat. 2014;36(8):795–804.
  5. Misch C, Crawford E. Predictable mandibular nerve location: A clinical zone of safety. Int J Oral Implantol. 1990;7(1):37–40.
  6. Koong B. Cone beam imaging: Is this the ultimate imaging modality? Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(11):1201–1208.
  7. Tözüm TF, Güncü GN, Yıldırım YD, et al. Evaluation of maxillary incisive canal characteristics related to dental implant treatment with computerized tomography: A clinical multicenter study. J Periodontol. 2012;83(3):337–343.
  8. Yıldırım YD, Güncü GN, Galindo-Moreno P, et al. Evaluation of mandibular lingual foramina related to dental implant treatment with computerized tomography: A multicenter clinical study. Implant Dent. 2014;23(1):57–63.
  9. Krennmair G, Ulm CW, Lugmayr H, Solar P. The incidence, location, and height of maxillary sinus septa in the edentulous and dentate maxilla. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999;57(6):667–672.
  10. Soikkonen K, Ainamo A. Radiographic maxillary sinus findings in the elderly. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1995;80(4):487–491.
  11. Von Arx T, Friedli M, Sendi P, Lozanoff S, Bornstein MM. Location and dimensions of the mental foramen: A radiographic analysis by using cone-beam computed tomography. J Endod. 2013;39(12):1522–1528.
  12. Ritter L, Lutz J, Neugebauer J, et al. Prevalence of pathologic findings in the maxillary sinus in cone-beam computerized tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011;111(5):634–640.
  13. Schneider AC, Bragger U, Sendi P, Caversaccio MD, Buser D, Bornstein MM. Characteristics and dimensions of the sinus membrane in patients referred for single-implant treatment in the posterior maxilla: A cone beam computed tomographic analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28(2):587–596.
  14. Bornstein MM, Wasmer J, Sendi P, Janner SFM, Buser D, von Arx T. Characteristics and dimensions of the Schneiderian membrane and apical bone in maxillary molars referred for apical surgery: A comparative radiographic analysis using limited cone beam computed tomography. J Endod. 2012;38(1):51–57.
  15. Underwood AS. An inquiry into the anatomy and pathology of the maxillary sinus. J Anat Physiol. 1910;44(Pt 4):354–369.
  16. Kim MJ, Jung UW, Kim CS, et al. Maxillary sinus septa: Prevalence, height, location, and morphology. A reformatted computed tomography scan analysis. J Periodontol. 2006;77:903–908.
  17. Mardinger O, Abba M, Hirshberg A, Schwartz-Arad D. Prevalence, diameter and course of the maxillary intraosseous vascular canal with relation to sinus augmentation procedure: A radiographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;36:735–738.
  18. Bornstein MM, Balsiger R, Sendi P, von Arx T. Morphology of the nasopalatine canal and dental implant surgery: A radiographic analysis of 100 consecutive patients using limited cone‐beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22:295–301.
  19. Shanbhag S, Karnik P, Shirke P, Shanbhag V. Cone-beam computed tomographic analysis of sinus membrane thickness, ostium patency, and residual ridge heights in the posterior maxilla: Implications for sinus floor elevation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25:755–760.
  20. Kalender A, Orhan K, Aksoy U. Evaluation of the mental foramen and accessory mental foramen in Turkish patients using cone‐beam computed tomography images reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program. Clin Anat. 2012;25(5):584–592.
  21. Haktanır A, Ilgaz K, Turhan-Haktanır N. Evaluation of mental foramina in adult living crania with MDCT. Surg Radiol Anat. 2010;32(4):351–356.
  22. Neiva RF, Gapski R, Wang HL. Morphometric analysis of implant-related anatomy in Caucasian skulls. J Periodontol. 2004;75(8):1061–1067.
  23. Li X, Jin ZK, Zhao H, Yang K, Duan JM, Wang WJ. The prevalence, length and position of the anterior loop of the inferior alveolar nerve in Chinese, assessed by spiral computed tomography. Surg Radiol Anat. 2013;35(9):823–830.
  24. Jacobs R, Mraiwa N, vanSteenberghe D, Gijbels F, Quirynen M. Appearance, location, course, and morphology of the mandibular incisive canal: An assessment on spiral CT scan. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002;31(5):322–327.
  25. 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. 2012;17(3):e420–425.
  26. Hsu JT, Huang HL, Fuh LJ, et al. Location of the mandibular canal and thickness of the occlusal cortical bone at dental implant sites in the lower second premolar and first molar. Comput Math Methods Med. 2013;2013:608570.
  27. Apostolakis D, Brown JE. The anterior loop of the inferior alveolar nerve: Prevalence, measurement of its length and a recommendation for interforaminal implant installation based on cone beam CT imaging. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(9):1022–1030.
  28. Al-Siweedi SY, Nambiar P, Shanmuhasuntharam P, Ngeow WC. Gaining surgical access for repositioning the inferior alveolar neurovascular bundle. Sci World J. 2014;2014:719243.
  29. Levine MH, Goddard AL, Dodson TB. Inferior alveolar nerve canal position: A clinical and radiographic study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65(3):470–474.
  30. Kilic C, Kamburoglu K, Ozen T, et al. The position of the mandibular canal and histologic feature of the inferior alveolar nerve. Clin Anat. 2010;23(1):34–42