Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Medical Imaging

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1573-4056
ISSN (Online): 1875-6603

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Research Article

Cone Beam CT Evaluation of Maxillary Sinus Floor and Alveolar Crest Anatomy for the Safe Placement of Implants

Author(s): Başak Kuşakçi Şeker, Kaan Orhan, Emre Şeker, Gülbahar Ustaoğlu*, Oğuz Ozan and Nilsun Bağiş

Volume 16, Issue 7, 2020

Page: [913 - 920] Pages: 8

DOI: 10.2174/1573405615666191212105745

Price: $65

Abstract

Background: Alveolar bone height in the posterior maxillary region is very important and critical for dental implant planning and placement.

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the anatomy of the maxillary sinus floor in relation to the alveolar crest and to determine variations in the vertical measurements between the maxillary sinus floor and the alveolar bone crest tip in the posterior edentulous maxilla with the use of cone beam computerized tomography.

Methods: This analysis enrolled 234 retrospectively selected patients (123 males with mean age 52.95±11.74 (range 32-76 years) and 111 females with mean age 58.14±11.92 (range 32-75 years)) with edentulous posterior maxillary regions. The maxillary sinus floor was divided into three anatomical segments (anterior, median and posterior) in relation to the transverse palatine suture. The measurements were performed on 3D surface rendered volumetric images by using rotation and translation of the views. Landmarks for measurement were specified by using a cursor driven pointer. Vertical lines were marked on the cross-sectional images between the alveolar ridge and the deepest point of the maxillary sinus floor for each of the three regions. P < 0.05 was regarded as statistically significant.

Results: The mean distance values between the sinus floor and the alveolar crest in the anterior, median and posterior regions were 8.74±3.97 mm, 5.37±3.23 mm and 7.06±3.28 mm, respectively. Measurements in the anterior region were found to be high in both total and gender groups compared to other regions. Also, subsinus alveolar bone heights decreased with increasing age in both genders in all three regions.

Conclusion: This study emphasizes that the mean subsinus alveolar bone height is highest in the anterior segment of the edentulous posterior maxilla. These results may guide clinicians to make the decision of implant placement area and lead to less invasive alternative surgery methods for edentulous posterior segments.

Keywords: Anatomic variations, CBCT, implant surgery, alveolar bone, alveolar ridge, dental implant.

Graphical Abstract

[1]
Kilic C, Kamburoglu K, Yuksel SP, Ozen T. An assessment of the relationship between the maxillary sinus floor and the maxillary posterior teeth root tips using dental cone-beam computerized tomography. Eur J Dent 2010; 4(4): 462-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1697866] [PMID: 20922167]
[2]
Misch C. Contemporary implant dentistry. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby 1999.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199901000-00013]
[3]
Güler AU, Sumer M, Sumer P, Biçer I. The evaluation of vertical heights of maxillary and mandibular bones and the location of anatomic landmarks in panoramic radiographs of edentulous patients for implant dentistry. J Oral Rehabil 2005; 32(10): 741-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01499.x] [PMID: 16159352]
[4]
Van der Weijden F, Dell’Acqua F, Slot DE. Alveolar bone dimensional changes of post-extraction sockets in humans: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2009; 36(12): 1048-58.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051x.2009.01482.x] [PMID: 19929956]
[5]
Schropp L, Kostopoulos L, Wenzel A, Isidor F. Clinical and radiographic performance of delayed-immediate single-tooth implant placement associated with peri-implant bone defects. A 2-year prospective, controlled, randomized follow-up report. J Clin Periodontol 2005; 32(5): 480-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051x.2005.00699.x] [PMID: 15842263]
[6]
Atwood DA. Reduction of residual ridges: a major oral disease entity. J Prosthet Dent 1971; 26(3): 266-79.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(71)90069-2] [PMID: 4934947]
[7]
Frost HM. Perspectives: a proposed general model of the “mechanostat” (suggestions from a new skeletal-biologic paradigm). Anat Rec 1996; 244(2): 139-47.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0185(199602)244:2<139::AID-AR1>3.0.CO;2-X] [PMID: 8808388]
[8]
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(10): 1138-44.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02087.x] [PMID: 21320169]
[9]
Sharan A, Madjar D. Maxillary sinus pneumatization following extractions: a radiographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23(1): 48-56.
[PMID: 18416412]
[10]
Eufinger H, König S, Eufinger A. The role of alveolar ridge width in dental implantology. Clin Oral Investig 1997; 1(4): 169-77.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s007840050029] [PMID: 9555213]
[11]
Razavi R, Zena RB, Khan Z, Gould AR. Anatomic site evaluation of edentulous maxillae for dental implant placement. J Prosthodont 1995; 4(2): 90-4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849x.1995.tb00322.x] [PMID: 8528447]
[12]
van den Bergh JP, ten Bruggenkate CM, Disch FJ, Tuinzing DB. Anatomical aspects of sinus floor elevations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11(3): 256-65.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003256.x] [PMID: 11168217]
[13]
Ulm CW, Solar P, Gsellmann B, Matejka M, Watzek G. The edentulous maxillary alveolar process in the region of the maxillary sinus-a study of physical dimension. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995; 24(4): 279-82.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0901-5027(95)80029-8] [PMID: 7490490]
[14]
Pommer B, Frantal S, Willer J, Posch M, Watzek G, Tepper G. Impact of dental implant length on early failure rates: a meta-analysis of observational studies. J Clin Periodontol 2011; 38(9): 856-63.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051x.2011.01750.x] [PMID: 21722154]
[15]
Sun HL, Huang C, Wu YR, Shi B. Failure rates of short (≤ 10 mm) dental implants and factors influencing their failure: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26(4): 816-25.
[PMID: 21841992]
[16]
Nunes LS, Bornstein MM, Sendi P, Buser D. Anatomical characteristics and dimensions of edentulous sites in the posterior maxillae of patients referred for implant therapy. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013; 33(3): 337-45.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.11607/prd.1475] [PMID: 23593627]
[17]
Yang SM, Park SI, Kye SB, Shin SY. Computed tomographic assessment of maxillary sinus wall thickness in edentulous patients. J Oral Rehabil 2012; 39(6): 421-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2012.02295.x] [PMID: 22471834]
[18]
Scandrett FR, Tebo HG, Miller JT, Quigley MB. Radiographic examination of the edentulous patient. I. Review of the literature and preliminary report comparing three methods. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1973; 35(2): 266-74.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(73)90293-4] [PMID: 4576432]
[19]
Sağlam AA. The vertical heights of maxillary and mandibular bones in panoramic radiographs of dentate and edentulous subjects. Quintessence Int 2002; 33(6): 433-8.
[PMID: 12073724]
[20]
Dove SB, McDavid WD. Digital panoramic and extraoral imaging. Dent Clin North Am 1993; 37(4): 541-51.
[PMID: 8224331]
[21]
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(1): 54-61.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01984.x] [PMID: 20831759]
[22]
Bouquet A, Coudert JL, Bourgeois D, Mazoyer JF, Bossard D. Contributions of reformatted computed tomography and panoramic radiography in the localization of third molars relative to the maxillary sinus. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004; 98(3): 342-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.02.082] [PMID: 15356474]
[23]
Verhamme LM, Meijer GJ, Bergé SJ, et al. An accuracy study of computer-planned implant placement in the augmented maxilla using mucosa-supported surgical templates. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015; 17(6): 1154-63.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cid.12230] [PMID: 25181255]
[24]
Khojastehpour L, Dehbozorgi M, Tabrizi R, Esfandnia S. Evaluating the anatomical location of the posterior superior alveolar artery in cone beam computed tomography images. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 45(3): 354-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.09.018] [PMID: 26516028]
[25]
Orhan K, Kusakci Seker B, Aksoy S, Bayindir H, Berberoğlu A, Seker E. Cone beam CT evaluation of maxillary sinus septa prevalence, height, location and morphology in children and an adult population. Med Princ Pract 2013; 22(1): 47-53.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000339849] [PMID: 22832185]
[26]
Maestre-Ferrín L, Galán-Gil S, Carrillo-García C, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Radiographic findings in the maxillary sinus: comparison of panoramic radiography with computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26(2): 341-6.
[PMID: 21483887]
[27]
Zhang W, Tullis J, Weltman R. Cone beam computerized tomography measurement of alveolar ridge at posterior mandible for implant graft estimation. J Oral Implantol 2015; 41(6): e231-7.
[http://dx.doi.org//10.1563/aaid-joi-d-14-00146] [PMID: 25535890]
[28]
Bornstein MM, Scarfe WC, Vaughn VM, Jacobs R. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29(Suppl.): 55-77.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.4] [PMID: 24660190]
[29]
Naitoh M, Suenaga Y, Kondo S, Gotoh K, Ariji E. Assessment of maxillary sinus septa using cone-beam computed tomography: etiological consideration. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009; 11(Suppl. 1): e52-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00194.x] [PMID: 19438951]
[30]
Friberg B, Grondahl K, Lekholm U, Branemark PI. Long-term follow-up of severely atrophic edentulous mandibles reconstructed with short Branemark implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000; 2(4): 84-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2000.tb00116.x]
[31]
Chang SH, Lin CL, Hsue SS, Lin YS, Huang SR. Biomechanical analysis of the effects of implant diameter and bone quality in short implants placed in the atrophic posterior maxilla. Med Eng Phys 2012; 34(2): 153-60.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.07.005] [PMID: 21807548]
[32]
Theunisse HJ, Joemai RM, Maal TJ, Geleijns J, Mylanus EA, Verbist BM. Cone-beam CT versus multi-slice CT systems for postoperative imaging of cochlear implantation--a phantom study on image quality and radiation exposure using human temporal bones. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36(4): 592-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000673] [PMID: 25420084]
[33]
Stratemann SA, Huang JC, Maki K, Miller AJ, Hatcher DC. Comparison of cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37(2): 80-93.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/31349994] [PMID: 18239035]
[34]
Zheng X, Teng M, Zhou F, Ye J, Li G, Mo A. Influence of maxillary sinus width on transcrestal sinus augmentation outcomes: radiographic evaluation based on cone beam CT. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016; 18(2): 292-300.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cid.12298] [PMID: 25720811]
[35]
Sharan A, Madjar D. Correlation between maxillary sinus floor topography and related root position of posterior teeth using panoramic and cross-sectional computed tomography imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006; 102(3): 375-81.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.09.031] [PMID: 16920546]
[36]
Xie Q, Soikkonen K, Wolf J, Mattila K, Gong M, Ainamo A. Effect of head positioning in panoramic radiography on vertical measurements: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1996; 25(2): 61-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.25.2.9446974] [PMID: 9446974]
[37]
Ariji Y, Kuroki T, Moriguchi S, Ariji E, Kanda S. Age changes in the volume of the human maxillary sinus: a study using computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1994; 23(3): 163-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.23.3.7835518] [PMID: 7835518]
[38]
Ohba T, Langlais RP, Morimoto Y, Tanaka T, Hashimoto K. Maxillary sinus floor in edentulous and dentate patients. Indian J Dent Res 2001; 12(3): 121-5.
[PMID: 11808062]
[39]
Wehrbein H, Diedrich P. Progressive pneumatization of the basal maxillary sinus after extraction and space closure. Fortschr Kieferorthop 1992; 53(2): 77-83.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02164641] [PMID: 1577348]
[40]
Watt DM, Likeman PR. Morphological changes in the denture bearing area following the extraction of maxillary teeth. Br Dent J 1974; 136(6): 225-35.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4803165] [PMID: 4614838]
[41]
Reich KM, Huber CD, Lippnig WR, Ulm C, Watzek G, Tangl S. Atrophy of the residual alveolar ridge following tooth loss in an historical population. Oral Dis 2011; 17(1): 33-44.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-0825.2010.01699.x] [PMID: 20604872]

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
Article Metrics
11
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy