Examination of the Relationship of Dental İmplants in the Maxilla with the Nasopalatine Canal by Cone-Beam Computed Tomography

Objective: The aim of this study is to examine the dental implants made in the maxilla on cone-beam computed tomography images and to evaluate their relationship with the nasopalatine canal by classifying them according to the safety margin. Materials and methods: In our study, CBCT images of 352 implants in 250 (110 male, 140 female) patients aged 22- 91 years were evaluated in multiplanar planes. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to examine the suitability of the available data for normal distribution. Relationships between categorical variables were calculated with the "Chisquare test" and the relationship between numerical variables was calculated with the "One Way Anova test". Results: The mean age of all cases was found to be 54.03 ± 11.86. No relationship was observed with the nasopalatine duct in 340 (96.6%) of the cases. When analyzed according to gender, no statistically significant difference was found between the nasopalatine canal and typings (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Implants that were not associated with the nasopalatine canal were found to be 96.6%. The number of implants unrelated to the nasopalatine canal was found to be higher

Keywords:

Cone beam computed tomography nasopalatine canal, dental implant.,

PDF

___

1. White SC, Pharoah Michael J. Oral Radiology: Principles Anf Interpretation: Elsevier; 2012.
2. Langland OE, Langlais RP. Early pioneers of oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1995;80(5):496-511.
3. Fokas G, Vaughn VM, Scarfe WC, Bornstein MM. Accuracy of linear measurements on CBCT images related to presurgical implant treatment planning: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:393-415.
4. Özalp Ö, Tezerişener HA, Kocabalkan B, Büyükkaplan UŞ, Özarslan MM, Kaya GŞ, et al. Comparing the precision of panoramic radiography and conebeam computed tomography in avoiding anatomical structures critical to dental implant surgery: A retrospective study. Imaging Sci Dent. 2018;48(4):269-75.
5. Kaya Y, Sarikcioglu L. Sir Herbert Seddon (1903–1977) and his classification scheme for peripheral nerve injury.Childs Nerv Syst. 2015;31(2):177-80.
6. Pamukçu U, İspir NG, Alkurt MT, Altunkaynak B, Peker İ. The Retrospective Assessment of Complications in Dental Implants Via ConeBeam Computed Tomography. Selcuk Dental Journal. 2021;8(2):367-71.
7. Gaêta-Araujo H, Oliveira-Santos N, Mancini AXM, Oliveira ML, OliveiraSantos C. Retrospective assessment of dental implant-related perforations of relevant anatomical structures and inadequate spacing between implants/teeth using cone-beam computed tomography.Clin Oral Investig 2020;24(9):3281-8.
8. Liaw K, Delfini RH, Abrahams JJ. Dental Implant Complications. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2015; 36: 427-33.
9. Genç T. Radiological Evaluation of Anatomical Structures and Variations in Maxilla and Mandible Before Dental Implant Treatment. 2014.
10. Hakbilen S, Mağat G. Nazopalatin kanal ve klinik önemi: Derleme. Selcuk Dental Journal. 2019;6(1):91-7.
11. Alkanderi A, Al Sakka Y, Koticha T, Li J, Masood F, Suárez‐López del Amo F. Incidence of nasopalatine canal perforation in relation to virtual implant placement: A cone beam computed tomography study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22(1):77-83.
12. Cavallaro J, Tsuji S, Chiu T-S, Greenstein G. Management of the Nasopalatine Canal and Foramen Associated With Dental Implant Therapy. Compend Contin Educ Dent (Jamesburg, NJ: 1995). 2016;38(6):367-72