Cargando…

The Effect of Mandibular Angulation on Preoperative Assessment of Dental Implant Insertion at Premolar Region: CBCT Study

BACKGROUNDS: This study investigated the effect of mandibular angulation on the perioperative evaluation of the implant placement at the premolar region on panoramic reconstructed images using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). METHODS: A total of six dried anonymous human mandibles was included....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mahmoudinezhad, Sadaf Sadat, AryanKia, Azarnoosh, Shooshtari, Sanaz Sharifi, Moradi, Kooshan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9167095/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35669722
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/7879239
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUNDS: This study investigated the effect of mandibular angulation on the perioperative evaluation of the implant placement at the premolar region on panoramic reconstructed images using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). METHODS: A total of six dried anonymous human mandibles was included. Two implants were inserted in the left and right first premolar region. CBCT scans were obtained from each mandible at the standard position, +20° extension, and -20° flexion. The distance of the implant from the anterior loop of the inferior alveolar nerve and mental foramen was measured. Mean absolute error (MAE) of the distance of the implant from both anatomical landmarks was measured. The Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test was used for the comparison of the measurements. All data were analyzed with the Stata program (version 15.1). RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between the distance of the implant from the mental foramen and the anterior loop of the inferior alveolar nerve up to 20° extension and flexion at both sides of the mandible. (All p > 0.1) However, a variable range of MAE (SD) in the distance of the implant from different anatomical landmarks was found (0.9 ± 0.7 to 3.3 ± 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistical difference in measurements of the distance of the implant from two anatomical landmarks at different head positions up to 20° extension and flexion. However, clinically, variable range in the distance of the implant from anatomical landmarks should be considered. Our findings could alert dentists of the possibility of error up to 20° extension and flexion on the perioperative evaluation of dental implant placement.