Computer Evaluation of the Changes of the Vestibular Bone Plate after Classical and Computer-Guided Delayed Implantation in Esthetic Zone

Danco Bizevski; Marija Peeva-Petreska; Nikolce Markoski; Enes Bajramov

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2023.11539

Authors

Danco Bizevski Private Healthcare Facility for Oral Surgery and Implantology – Nova Dental Surgery, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1675-490X
Marija Peeva-Petreska Department of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
Nikolce Markoski Private Healthcare Facility for Oral Surgery and Implantology – Nova Dental Surgery, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
Enes Bajramov Private Healthcare Facility for General Dentistry – Nova Dental Group, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2023.11539

Keywords:

buccal bone plate, delayed implantation, computer-guided surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The buccal bone plate as one of the key anatomical structures is of great importance for the success of implant therapy in the frontal maxilla and is particularly prone to changes that occur post-extraction. The condition of the buccal bone plate and its dimensions in the horizontal and vertical direction directly affects the method of implantation, the position of the implant, and the long-term results of the implant treatment.

AIM: The aim of the study is to compare the differences and changes of the buccal bone plate in the anterior maxilla, during delayed implantation with and without the use of a surgical guide, which implies the use of different surgical techniques. Furthermore, the aim of this study is to determine their advantages and disadvantages.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: To achieve the set goal, through CBCT images and computer software, changes in 40 patients divided into two groups were analyzed in three time periods: 20 patients who underwent delayed implantation in the anterior maxilla without a surgical guide and the second group of 20 patients who underwent delayed implantation using a surgical guide, which means that in the second group of patients, there was no mucoperiosteal flap elevation.

RESULTS: The analysis of changes in the buccal bone plate showed that the biggest changes were in patients who underwent delayed implantation according to the classical method and approach. The greatest changes in the horizontal dimension in the first group of patients (MI) were in positions 1, 3, and 6. Namely, for position 1, from an average horizontal dimension of 1.54 mm, the dimensions decreased to 0.26 mm during 12 months. On the contrary, in the second group, these dimensions recorded a slight decrease from 2.37 to 2.2 mm on average. At position 3, there was also a more developed resorption in the first group, from 1.54 mm to 0.88 mm, and in the second group, the resorption was insignificant and for the same period of 12 months, the horizontal dimension decreased from 2.27 mm to 2.12 mm, in which, clinically, it was not evident. Regarding the vertical dimension for 12 months in the first group, the resorptive changes ranged from 1.1 to 3.3 mm on average, while in the second group, changes in the vertical dimension were not observed, and they did not exist in the examined patients. The bone density in both groups decreased only in position 0 and much more in the first group where it decreased in a period of 12 months from 742 Hu to 150 Hu, while the decrease in the second group was from 1080.5 Hu to 1080 Hu. For all other dimensions, there is an increase in density in all time periods, higher in the second group.

CONCLUSION: The obtained results showed that the greatest changes in the buccal bone plate in all dimensions occur during delayed implantation with a classical approach. This is mainly due to the position of the implants, as well as the disruption of the blood supply to the bone plate, which follows the creation of the flap.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

Cosyn J, Eghbali A, De Bryun H, Collys K, Cleymaet R, De Rouck T. Immediate single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla: 3-Year results of a case series on hard and soft tissue response and aesthetics. J Clin Periodontol. 2011;38(8):746-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01748.x PMid:21752044 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01748.x

Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: Anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:43-61. PMid:15635945

Cardaropoli G, Lekholm U, Wennstrom JL. Tissue alterations at implant-supported single-tooth replacements: A 1-year prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(2):165-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01210.x PMid:16584412 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01210.x

Quaranta A, Perroti V, Putignano A, Malchiodi L, Vozza I, Guirado JL. Anatomical remodeling of buccal bone plate in 35 premaxillary post-extraction immediately restored single TPS implants: 10-year radiographic investigation. Implant Dent. 2016;25(2):186-92. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000375 PMid:26836125 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000375

Belser UC, Buser D, Hess D, Schmid B, Bernard JP, Lang NP. Aesthetic implant restorations in partially edentulous patients--a critical appraisal. Periodontol 2000. 1998;17:132-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.1998.tb00131.x PMid:10337321 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.1998.tb00131.x

Klinge B, Flemmig TF, Working Group 3. Tissue augmentation and esthetics (Working Group 3). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20 Suppl 4:166-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01774.x PMid:19663962 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01774.x

Grunder U, Gracis S, Capelli M. Influence of the 3-D bone-to- implant relationship on esthetics. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2005;25(2):113-9. PMid:15839587

Veltri M, Ekestubbe A, Abrahamsson I, Wennström JL. Three- Dimensional buccal bone anatomy and aesthetic outcome of single dental implants replacing maxillary incisors. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(8):956-3. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12664 PMid:26178908 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12664

BenicGI,MoktiM,ChenCJ,WeberHP,HämmerleCH,GallucciGO.

Dimensions of buccal bone and mucosa at immediately placed implants after 7 years: A clinical and cone beam computed tomography study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(5):560-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02253.x PMid:22093013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02253.x

Felice P, Soardi E, Piatteli M, Pistillil R, Jacotti M, Esposito M. Immediate non-oclusal loading of immediate post-extractive versus delayed placement of single implants in preserved sockets of the anterior maxilla: 4 Month post-loading results from a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2011;4(4):329-44. PMid:22282730

Al-Khaldi N, Sleeman D, Allen F. Stability of dental implants in grafted bone in the anterior maxilla: Longitudinal study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;49(4):319-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2010.05.009 PMid:20965105 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2010.05.009

Fang Y, Xueyin A, Jeong SM, Choi BH. Accuracy of computer-guided implant placement in anterior regions. J Protsthet Dent. 2018;121(5):836-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.07.015 PMid:30598309 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.07.015

Zhang W, Skypczak A, Weltman R. Anterior maxilla alveolar ridge dimension and morphology measurement by cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) for immediate implant treatment planning. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15:65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-015-0055-1 PMid:26059796 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-015-0055-1

Blanco J, Carral C, Argibay O, Liñares A. Implant placement in fresh extraction sockets. Periodontol 2000. 2019;79(1):151-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12253 PMid:30892772 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12253

Schropp L, Wenzel A, Spin-Neto R, Stavropoulos A. Fate of the buccal bone at implants placed early, delayed, or late after tooth extraction analyzed by cone beam CT: 10-Year results from a randomized, controlled, clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(5):492-500. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12424 PMid:24890861 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12424

Razavi T, Palmer RM, Davies J, Wilson R, Palmer PJ. Accuracy of measuring the cortical bone thickness adjacent to dental implants using cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(7):718-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01905.x PMid:20636726 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01905.x

Komiyama A, Hultin M, Näsström K, Benchimol D, Klinge B. Soft tissue conditions and marginal bone changes around immediately loaded implants inserted in edentate jaws following computer guided treatment planning and flapless surgery: A ≥1-year clinical follow-up study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14(2):157-69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00243.x PMid:19793330 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00243.x