The prevalence and characterization of implant-related findings in panoramic radiographs
Vol 4, Issue 1, 2021
VIEWS - 3686 (Abstract) 4145 (PDF)
Abstract
Introduction: In Colombia, the last oral health study showed that about 70% of the population has partial edentulism while 5.2% will have lost all their teeth between the age of 65 and 79. Rehabilitation with implants is an increasingly used option, which requires clinical and radiographic follow-up. Panoramic radiography is a low-cost option, in which it is possible to observe areas of bone loss, mesiodistal angulation of the implant, relationship with anatomical structures and lesions suggestive of peri-implantitis. Reports and analysis of relevant data on radiographic findings associated with dental implants are required to determine the risk factors for their success in patients who use them. Objective: To determine the prevalence and characterize the findings associated with osseointegration implants in panoramic radiographs. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional observational study was carried out with 10,000 digital panoramic radiographs selected by convenience from radiological centers in the city of Bogota, Colombia, of which 543 corresponded to the sample analyzed for the presence of implants. The following were evaluated for each implant: location, position, angulation and distances to adjacent structures, using the Clínicalview® program (Orthopantomograph OP200D, Instrumentarium, USA). Results: The frequency of radiographs with implants was 5.43% with a total of 1,791 implants, with an average of 3.2 per radiograph. They were found in greater proportion in the upper jaw with a supracrestal location and an angulation of 10.3 degrees. 32% had implant/tooth or implant/implant distances that were less than optimal. 40.9% were restored and 1.2% showed lesions compatible with periimplantitis. Conclusions: A high percentage of the implants reviewed have a risk factor that affects their long-term viability, either due to angulation, supracrestal or crestal position, proximity to teeth or other implants, or because they are not restorable.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. Russel SL, Gordon S, Lukacs JR, et al. Sex/gender differences in tooth loss and edentulism: Historical perspectives, biological factors, and sociologic reasons. Dental Clinics of North America 2013; 57(2): 317–337.
2. Ministry of Health. IV Estudio Nacional de Salud Bucal (ENSAB IV) (Spanish) [IV national oral health study (ENSAB IV)]. Bogota: Colombian Ministry of Health; 2013.
3. Chugh NK, Bhattacharyya J, Das S, et al. Use of digital panoramic radiology in presurgical implant treatment planning to accurately assess bone density. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2016; 116(2): 200–205. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.017.
4. Gutmacher Z, Machtei EE, Hirsh I, et al. A comparative study on the use of digital panoramic and periapical radiographs to assess proximal bone height around dental implants. Quintessence International 2016; 47(5): 441–446. doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a35704.
5. Cortes AR, Eimar H, Barbosa J de S, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of radiographic methods for predicting insertion torque of dental implants. Journal of Periodontology 2015; 86(5): 646–655. doi: 10.1902/jop.2015.140584.
6. Machtei EE, Oettinger-Barak O, Horwitz J. Axial relationship between dental implants and teeth/implants: A radiographic study. Journal of Oral Implantology 2014; 40(4): 425–431. doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-12-00052.
7. Saulacic N, Abboud M, Pohl Y, et al. Implant-supported mandibular overdentures and cortical bone formation: Clinical and radiographic results. Implant Dentistry 2014; 23(1): 85–91. doi: 10.1097/ID.00000000000000000032.
8. Caubet J, Heras I, Sanchez J, et al. Management of anteroposterior bone defects in aestethic restoration of the front teeth. Revista Española de Cirugía Oral y Maxilofacial 2009; 31(2): 81–97.
9. Aradya A, Kumar UK, Chowdhary R. Influence of different abutment diameter of implants on the peri-implant stress in the crestal bone: A three-dimensional finite element analysis—In vitro study. Indian Journal of Dental Research 2016; 27(1): 78–85. doi: 10.4103/0970-9290.179836.
10. Behnaz E, Ramin M, Abbasi S, et al. The effect of implant angulation and splinting on stress distribution in implant body and supporting bone: A finite element analysis. European Journal of Dentistry 2015; 9(3): 311–318. doi: 10.4103/1305- 7456.163235.
11. Ishak MI, Abdul Kadir MR, Sulaiman E, et al. Finite element analysis of different surgical approaches in various occlusal loading locations for zygomatic implant placement for the treatment of atrophic maxillae. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2012; 41(9): 1077–1089. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.04.010.
12. Guzmán S. Criterios de éxito y fracaso en implantes dentales oseointegrados (Spanish) [Criteria for success and failure in osseointegrated dental implants]. Acta Odontológica Venezolana 2013; 51(2): 150–158.
13. Negri M, Galli C, Smerieri A, et al. The effect of age, gender, and insertion site on marginal bone loss around endosseous implants: Results from a 3-year trial with premium implant system. BioMed Research International 2014; 2014: 369051. doi: 10.1155/2014/369051.
14. Pinchi V, Varvara G, Pradella F, et al. Analysis of professional malpractice claims in implant dentistry in Italy from insurance company technical reports, 2006 to 2010. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 2014; 29(5): 1177–1184.
15. Lee YK, Kim JW, Baek SH, et al. Root and bone response to the proximity of a mini-implant under orthodontic loading. Angle Orthodontist 2010; 80(3): 452–458.
16. Danza M, Zollino I, Avantaggiato A, et al. Distance between implants has a potential impact of crestal bone resorption. Saudi Dental Journal 2011; 23(3): 129–133.
17. Jo DW, Yi YJ, Kwon MJ, et al. Correlation between interimplant distance and crestal bone loss in internal connection implants with platform switching. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 2014; 29(2): 296–302.
18. Siadat H, Panjnoosh M, Alikhasi M, et al. Does implant staging choice affect crestal bone loss? Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2012; 70(2): 307–313.
19. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: The International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dentistry 2008; 17(1): 5–15.
20. Al Amri MD. Influence of interimplant distance on the crestal bone height around dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2016; 115(3): 278–282.
21. Duque AD, Aristizabal AG, Londoño S, et al. Prevalence of peri-implant disease on platform switching implants: A cross-sectional pilot study. Brazilian Oral Research 2016; 30. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2016.vol30.0005.
22. van Eekeren P, Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D. Crestal bone changes in macrogeometrically similar implants with the implant-abutment connection at the crestal bone level or 2.5 mm above: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2015; 21. doi: 10.1111/clr.12581.
23. Trullenque-Eriksson A, Guisado Moya B. Retrospective long-term evaluation of dental implants in totally and partially edentulous patients: Part II: Peri-implant disease. Implant Dentistry 2015; 24(2): 217–221.
24. De Bruyn H, Vandeweghe S, Ruyffelaert C, et al. Radiographic evaluation of modern oral implants with emphasis on crestal bone level and relevance to peri-implant health. Periodontology 2000 2013; 62(1): 256–270.
25. Pabst AM, Walter C, Ehbauer S, et al. Analysis of implant-failure predictors in the posterior maxilla: A retrospective study of 1395 implants. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery 2015; 43(3): 414–420.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24294/irr.v4i1.1732
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.