Sıdıka Sinem AKDENİZ, Nur ALTIPARMAK, Meryem Toraman ALKURT, İLKAY PEKER, Nurettin DİKER

Dental İmplantlardaki Komplikasyonların Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi İle Retrospektif Olarak Değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Dental implantlar günümüzde kısmi ve/veya tam dişsiz çenelerin rehabilitasyonu için yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, dental implantı mevcut hastaların konik-ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) görüntülerinde belirlenen komplikasyonlarının tiplerini ve yaygınlığını değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Radyoloji kliniğinde çeşitli dental nedenlerden dolayı elde edilmiş 1025 hastaya ait KIBT görüntüleri incelendi; bunların içinde dental implant tespit edilen 103 görüntü komplikasyonlar açısından retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Belirlenen komplikasyonların sayısı, lokalizasyonu ve tipi (maksiller sinüs, mandibular kanal, kortikal kemik, nazal kavite, ve nazopalatin kanalda perforasyon; hatalı açılandırma; implant fraktürü; komşu diş kökü ile temas; implant çevresindeki vertikal kemik rezorpsiyonu ve periapikal radyolusensi) kaydedildi. Elde edilen veriler deskriptif istatistik ve ki-kare testleriyle istatistiksel olarak analiz edildi. Bulgular: Toplam 341 dental implant değerlendirildi ve bunların % 87.1’inde en az bir komplikasyon tespit edildi. Komplikasyonlu 297 dental implantta toplam 505 komplikasyon (implant başına 1.7 komplikasyon) gözlendi. Hasta başına düşen implant sayısı 3.3 ± 2.3, komplikasyonlu implant sayısı 2.9 ± 2.1’di. En fazla gözlenen komplikasyonlar sırasıyla implant çevresindeki vertikal kemik rezorpsiyonu (% 59.6), kortikal kemik perforasyonu (% 40.1) ve hatalı açılandırmaydı (% 24.9). En fazla komplikasyon maksiller posterior bölgede belirlendi. Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın sonuçları, dental implantlardaki komplikasyon görülme sıklığının yüksek olduğunu gösterdi. En fazla gözlenen komplikasyonun vertikal kemik rezorpsiyonu olduğu ve çoğunlukla maksiller posterior bölgede görüldüğü tespit edildi.

The Retrospective Assessment of Complications in Dental Implants Via Cone-Beam Computed Tomography

Background: Today, dental implants are widely used for the rehabilitation of partial and/or total edentulous jaws. The aim of this study is to evaluate the types and frequency of complications detected in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of patients with dental implants. Methods: The CBCT images of 1025 patients, obtained for various dental reasons in the radiology clinic, were examined and 103 images with dental implants were evaluated retrospectively in terms of complications. The number, localization and types (maxillary sinus, mandibular canal, nasal fossa, cortical bone, and nasopalatine canal perforation; improper angulation; implant fracture; contact with the neighboring tooth root; vertical bone resorption and periapical radiolucency around the implant) of identified complications were recorded. Obtained data were statistically analyzed with descriptive statistics and chi-square test. Results: Totally 341 dental implants were evaluated and at least one complication was detected in 87.1 % of them. A total of 505 complications (1.7 complications per implant) were observed in 297 dental implants. The number of implants per patient was 3.3 ± 2.3 and the number of complications was 2.9 ± 2.1. The most common observed complications were vertical bone resorption around the implant (59.6 %), cortical bone perforation (40.1 %), and incorrect angulation (24.9 %). Implants with complications were mostly observed in the maxillary posterior region. Conclusion: The results of this study showed that the frequency of complications in dental implants is high. It was determined that the most observed complication was vertical bone resorption and mostly seen in the maxillary posterior region.

PDF

___

1. Balshi TJ, Wolfinger GJ, Stein BE, Balshi SF. A long- term retrospective analysis of survival rates of implants in the mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30(6):1348-54.
2. Soto-Peñaloza D, Zaragozí-Alonso R, Peñarrocha- Diago M, Peñarrocha-Diago M. The all-on-four treatment concept: Systematic review. Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry. 2017;9(3):e474.
3. De Angelis F, Papi P, Mencio F, Rosella D, Di Carlo S, Pompa G. Implant survival and success rates in patients with risk factors: results from a long-term retrospective study with a 10 to 18 years follow-up. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2017;21(3):433-7.
4. Ferrigno N, Laureti M, Fanali S. Dental implants placement in conjunction with osteotome sinus floor elevation: a 12‐year life‐table analysis from a prospective study on 588 ITI® implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(2):194-205.
5. Fugazzotto PA, Vlassis J, Butler B. ITI implant use in private practice: clinical results with 5,526 implants followed up to 72+ months in function. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19(3).
6. Schwartz‐Arad D, Herzberg R, Levin L. Evaluation of long‐term implant success. J Periodontol. 2005;76(10):1623-8.
7. Sennerby L, Becker W. Implant success versus survival. 2000.
8. Kohavi D, Azran G, Shapira L, Casap N. Retrospective clinical review of dental implants placed in a university training program. J Oral Implantol. 2004;30(1):23-9.
9. Clark D, Barbu H, Lorean A, Mijiritsky E, Levin L. Incidental findings of implant complications on postimplantation CBCTs: A cross‐sectional study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;19(5):776-82.
10.Misch K, Wang H-L. Implant surgery complications: etiology and treatment. Implant Dent. 2008;17(2):159- 68.
11.Yepes JF, Al-Sabbagh M. Use of cone-beam computed tomography in early detection of implant failure. Dental Clinics. 2015;59(1):41-56.
12.Schulze RKW, Berndt D, d'Hoedt B. On cone‐beam computed tomography artifacts induced by titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(1):100-7.
13.Wang G, Vannier MW, Cheng P-C. Iterative X-ray cone-beam tomography for metal artifact reduction and local region reconstruction. Microsc Microanal. 1999;5(1):58-65.
14.Zhang Y, Zhang L, Zhu XR, Lee AK, Chambers M, Dong L. Reducing metal artifacts in cone-beam CT images by preprocessing projection data. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2007;67(3):924-32.
15.Yilmaz Z, Ucer C, Scher E, Suzuki J, Renton T. A Survey of the Opinion and Experience of UK Dentists: Part 2 Risk Assessment Strategies and the Management of Iatrogenic Trigeminal Nerve Injuries Related to Dental Implant Surgery. Implant Dent. 2017;26(2):256-62. 16.
16.Rai A, Burde K, Guttal K, Naikmasur VG. Comparison between cone-beam computed tomography and direct digital intraoral imaging for the diagnosis of periapical pathology. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. 2016;4(3):50.
17.Zhong W, Chen B, Liang X, Ma G. Experimental study on penetration of dental implants into the maxillary sinus in different depths. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2013;21(6):560-6.
18.Reiser GM, Rabinovitz Z, Bruno J, Damoulis PD, Griffin TJ. Evaluation of maxillary sinus membrane response following elevation with the crestal osteotome technique in human cadavers. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001;16(6).
19.Timmenga NM, Raghoebar GM, Boering G, van Weissenbruch R. Maxillary sinus function after sinus lifts for the insertion of dental implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997;55(9):936-9.
20.Baumann A, Ewers R. The minimal sinus floor elevation-Limitation and possibilities in the atrophic maxilla. Mund-, Kiefer-und Gesichtschirurgie. 1999;3(7):S70-S3.
21.Elhamruni LMM, Marzook HAM, Ahmed WMS, Abdul-Rahman M. Experimental study on penetration of dental implants into the maxillary sinus at different depths. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;20(3):281-7.
22.Bartling R, Freeman K, Kraut RA. The incidence of altered sensation of the mental nerve after mandibular implant placement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999;57(12):1408-10.
23.Van Steenberghe D, Lekholm U, Bolender C, Folmer T, Henry P, Herrmann I, et al. The Applicability of Osseointegrated Oral Implants in the Rehabilitation of Partial Edentulism: A Prospective Multicenter Study on 558 Fixtures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990;5(3).
24.Ellies LG, Hawker PB. The prevalence of altered sensation associated with implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;8(6).
25.McDermott NE, Chuang S-K, Woo VV, Dodson TB. Complications of dental implants: identification, frequency, and associated risk factors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18(6).