Relative Bone Width of the Edentulous Maxillary Ridge. Clinical Implications of Digital Assessment in Presurgical Implant Planning
Corresponding Author
Joannis Katsoulis Dr. med dent., MAS
Assistant professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland;
Dr. J. Katsoulis, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, 3010 Bern, Switzerland; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorNorbert Enkling PD Dr. med. dent.
Assistant professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland;
Search for more papers by this authorTakuro Takeichi DDS, PhD
assistant professor, Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Aichi Gakuin University, Japan;
Search for more papers by this authorIstvan A. Urban DMD, MD
assistant professor, Graduate Implant Dentistry, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California and private practice in Periodontics and Implant Dentistry, Budapest, Hungary;
Search for more papers by this authorRegina Mericske-Stern Prof. Dr. med. dent.
director and chair, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Search for more papers by this authorMarianna Avrampou DDS, MSc
Assistant professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland;
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Joannis Katsoulis Dr. med dent., MAS
Assistant professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland;
Dr. J. Katsoulis, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, 3010 Bern, Switzerland; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorNorbert Enkling PD Dr. med. dent.
Assistant professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland;
Search for more papers by this authorTakuro Takeichi DDS, PhD
assistant professor, Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Aichi Gakuin University, Japan;
Search for more papers by this authorIstvan A. Urban DMD, MD
assistant professor, Graduate Implant Dentistry, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California and private practice in Periodontics and Implant Dentistry, Budapest, Hungary;
Search for more papers by this authorRegina Mericske-Stern Prof. Dr. med. dent.
director and chair, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Search for more papers by this authorMarianna Avrampou DDS, MSc
Assistant professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland;
Search for more papers by this authorABSTRACT
Background: Healthy, well-structured mucosa may clinically disguise atrophic jawbone in preimplant diagnosis.
Purpose: To analyze bone width in relation to the complete ridge thickness comparing the anterior with the posterior edentulous maxilla.
Materials and Methods: Data of 52 patients (mean age 62 ± 9 years) who were edentulous for at least 1 year and who received implant treatment were analyzed. Computed tomography (CT) scans were obtained and virtually analyzed in perpendicular sections of 12 maxillary positions (central and lateral incisors, canines, premolars, and first molars) using an implant planning software. Absolute thickness of complete jaw, bone, and mucosa were digitally measured at crestal and basal ridge levels allowing for relative bone width (B-rel) calculation.
Results: Mean B-rel at crestal levels was lower than at basal levels (38.6% vs 51.5%, p < .001). Bone width increased significantly (p < .001) in the posterior maxilla at both levels, whereas the thickness of palatal and buccal mucosa was considerably stable. Mean basal B-rel ranged from 49% (6.2 ± 2.0 mm) at incisors to 59% (9.0 ± 2.3 mm) at first molars (p < .001). Mean proportion of regions showing B-rel < 50% were 43% at basal and 80% at crestal levels.
Conclusions: The osseous volume of a large edentulous ridge might be clinically overestimated in preimplant diagnosis, as the relative bone width was generally lower than 50%. Clinicians can use the present results of the virtual bone and mucosa measurements to have a better first estimation of the osseous proportion depending on the maxillary area. However, up to date implant therapy for the edentulous maxilla requires CT-based prosthetically driven implant planning and preferably combination with guided implant placement by transferring planning information to a surgical template.
REFERENCES
- 1 Mericske-Stern RD, Taylor TD, Belser U. Management of the edentulous patient. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11(Suppl 1): 108–125.
- 2 Drago C, Carpentieri J. Treatment of maxillary jaws with dental implants: guidelines for treatment. J Prosthodont 2011; 20: 336–347.
- 3 Kelly E. Changes caused by a mandibular removable partial denture opposing a maxillary complete denture. J Prosthet Dent 1972; 27: 140–150.
- 4 Tolstunov L. Combination syndrome symptomatology and treatment. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2011; 32: 62–66.
- 5 Bassetti R, Bassetti M, Kremer U, Mericske-Stern R. [Does the combination syndrome exist? A case report]. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 2010; 120: 771–786.
- 6 Tolstunov L. Combination syndrome: classification and case report. J Oral Implantol 2007; 33: 139–151.
- 7 de Oliveira RC, Leles CR, Normanha LM, Lindh C, Ribeiro-Rotta RF. Assessments of trabecular bone density at implant sites on CT images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 105: 231–238.
- 8 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.
- 9 Chan HL, Misch K, Wang HL. Dental imaging in implant treatment planning. Implant Dent 2010; 19: 288–298.
- 10 Katsoulis J, Pazera P, Mericske-Stern R. Prosthetically driven, computer-guided implant planning for the edentulous maxilla: a model study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009; 11: 238–245.
- 11 BouSerhal C, Jacobs R, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. Imaging technique selection for the preoperative planning of oral implants: a review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2002; 4: 156–172.
- 12 Harris D, Buser D, Dula K, et al. E.A.O. guidelines fo the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration in Trinity College Dublin. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13: 566–570.
- 13 Schneider D, Marquardt P, Zwahlen M, Jung RE. A systematic review on the accuracy and the clinical outcome of computer-guided template-based implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20(Suppl 4): 73–86.
- 14 Jung RE, Schneider D, Ganeles J, et al. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24(Suppl): 92–109.
- 15 Bidra AS. Three-dimensional esthetic analysis in treatment planning for implant-supported fixed prosthesis in the edentulous maxilla: review of the esthetics literature. J Esthet Restor Dent 2011; 23: 219–236.
- 16 Kydd WL, Daly CH, Wheeler JB 3rd. The thickness measurement of masticatory mucosa in vivo. Int Dent J 1971; 21: 430–441.
- 17 Studer SP, Allen EP, Rees TC, Kouba A. The thickness of masticatory mucosa in the human hard palate and tuberosity as potential donor sites for ridge augmentation procedures. J Periodontol 1997; 68: 145–151.
- 18 Uchida H, Kobayashi K, Nagao M. Measurement in vivo of masticatory mucosal thickness with 20 MHz B-mode ultrasonic diagnostic equipment. J Dent Res 1989; 68: 95–100.
- 19 Muller HP, Schaller N, Eger T, Heinecke A. Thickness of masticatory mucosa. J Clin Periodontol 2000; 27: 431–436.
- 20 Luk LC, Pow EH, Li TK, Chow TW. Comparison of ridge mapping and cone beam computed tomography for planning dental implant therapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26: 70–74.
- 21 Chen LC, Lundgren T, Hallstrom H, Cherel F. Comparison of different methods of assessing alveolar ridge dimensions prior to dental implant placement. J Periodontol 2008; 79: 401–405.
- 22 Braut V, Bornstein MM, Belser U, Buser D. Thickness of the anterior maxillary facial bone wall – a retrospective radiographic study using cone beam computed tomography. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2011; 31: 125–131.
- 23 Januario AL, Duarte WR, Barriviera M, Mesti JC, Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimension of the facial bone wall in the anterior maxilla: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 1168–1171.
- 24 Nowzari H, Molayem S, Chiu CH, Rich SK. Cone beam computed tomographic measurement of maxillary central incisors to determine prevalence of facial alveolar bone width ≥2 mm. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00287.x.
- 25 Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003; 23: 313–323.
- 26 Carlsson GE, Persson G. Morphologic changes of the mandible after extraction and wearing of dentures. A longitudinal, clinical, and x-ray cephalometric study covering 5 years. Odontol Revy 1967; 18: 27–54.
- 27 Watt DM, Likeman PR. Morphological changes in the denture bearing area following the extraction of maxillary teeth. Br Dent J 1974; 136: 225–235.
- 28 Tallgren A. The continuing reduction of the residual alveolar ridges in complete denture wearers: a mixed-longitudinal study covering 25 years. 1972. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89: 427–435.
- 29 Sato T, Hara T, Mori S, Shirai H, Minagi S. Threshold for bone resorption induced by continuous and intermittent pressure in the rat hard palate. J Dent Res 1998; 77: 387–392.
- 30 Campbell RL. A comparative study of the resorption of the alveolar ridges in denture-wearers and non-denture-wearers. J Am Dent Assoc 1960; 60: 143–153.
- 31 Carlsson GE. Responses of jawbone to pressure. Gerodontology 2004; 21: 65–70.
- 32 Palmqvist S, Carlsson GE, Owall B. The combination syndrome: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90: 270–275.
- 33 Lindhe J, Cecchinato D, Bressan EA, Toia M, Araujo MG, Liljenberg B. The alveolar process of the edentulous maxilla in periodontitis and non-periodontitis subjects. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23: 5–11.
- 34 Fermergard R, Astrand P. Osteotome sinus floor elevation without bone grafts—A 3-year retrospective study with Astra Tech implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00254.x.
- 35 Jensen OT, Shulman LB, Block MS, Iacono VJ. Report of the Sinus Consensus Conference of 1996. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998; 13(Suppl): 11–45.
- 36 Pjetursson BE, Rast C, Bragger U, Schmidlin K, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. Maxillary sinus floor elevation using the (transalveolar) osteotome technique with or without grafting material. Part I: implant survival and patients' perception. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20: 667–676.
- 37 Diserens V, Mericske E, Schappi P, Mericske-Stern R. Transcrestal sinus floor elevation: report of a case series. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006; 26: 151–159.
- 38 Tan WC, Lang NP, Zwahlen M, Pjetursson BE. A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. Part II: transalveolar technique. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35: 241–254.
- 39 Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Zaniboni M. Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24(Suppl): 237–259.
- 40 Urban IA, Jovanovic SA, Lozada JL. Vertical ridge augmentation using guided bone regeneration (GBR) in three clinical scenarios prior to implant placement: a retrospective study of 35 patients 12 to 72 months after loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24: 502–510.
- 41 Urban IA, Nagursky H, Lozada JL. Horizontal ridge augmentation with a resorbable membrane and particulated autogenous bone with or without anorganic bovine bone-derived mineral: a prospective case series in 22 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26: 404–414.
- 42 Bornstein MM, Balsiger R, Sendi P, von Arx T. Morphology of the nasopalatine canal and dental implant surgery: a radiographic analysis of 100 consecutive patients using limited cone-beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 295–301.
- 43 Farina R, Pramstraller M, Franceschetti G, Pramstraller C, Trombelli L. Alveolar ridge dimensions in maxillary posterior sextants: a retrospective comparative study of dentate and edentulous sites using computerized tomography data. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 1138–1144.
- 44 Pramstraller M, Farina R, Franceschetti G, Pramstraller C, Trombelli L. Ridge dimensions of the edentulous posterior maxilla: a retrospective analysis of a cohort of 127 patients using computerized tomography data. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 54–61.
- 45 Gisler V, Katsoulis J, Mericske-Stern R. Computergestützte implantatprothetik des zahnlosen oberkiefers bei special-care-patienten – eine fallserie (teil II). Fall 2 (erschöpfungsdepression) und fall 3 (kieferkammatrophie). Implantologie 2010; 18: 325–336.
- 46 Katsoulis J, Gisler V, Enkling N, Mericske-Stern R. Computergestützte implantatprothetik des zahnlosen oberkiefers bei special care patienten: eine fallserie (teil III). Fall 4 (LKG-patient) und fall 5 (phobie-patientin). Implantologie 2011; 19: 63–74.
- 47 Katsoulis J, Gisler V, Mericske-Stern R. Computergestützte implantatprothetik des zahnlosen oberkiefers bei special-care-patienten – eine fallserie. einführung und fall 1 (angstpatient mit spezieller anatomie). Implantologie 2010; 18: 193–202.
- 48 Vasak C, Watzak G, Gahleitner A, Strbac G, Schemper M, Zechner W. Computed tomography-based evaluation of template (NobelGuide)-guided implant positions: a prospective radiological study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 1157–1163.
- 49 Valente F, Schiroli G, Sbrenna A. Accuracy of computer-aided oral implant surgery: a clinical and radiographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24: 234–242.
