Купить СНПЧ А7 Архангельск, оперативня доставка

crosscheckdeposited

Disponibilidade Óssea para Instalação de Implante na Região Edêntula de Primeiro Molar Inferior

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15603/2176-1000/odonto.v19n38p91-98

https://www.metodista.br/revistas/revistas-ims/index.php/O1/index 

downloadpdf

Diego K. de Vasconcellos1, Renato M. Jóias2, Cláudia Â. M. Volpato3, Angela B. Blumer4 & Simone H. G. de Oliveira5

 

Resumo: Objetivo: avaliar, com o auxílio de tomografias computadorizadas, a disponibilidade óssea para a realização de cirurgias de instalação de implantes osseointegrados em função da localização do canal mandibular. Metodologia: trinta e duas tomografias computadorizadas de mandíbulas edêntulas foram analisadas na região do primeiro molar inferior. As mensurações desconsideraram a crista do rebordo residual até que se alcançasse uma espessura óssea mínima de 5,0mm, e, a partir desse ponto foi mensurada a distância existente até o teto superior do canal mandibular. Resultados: observou-se, em média, 11,625mm de tecido ósseo, variando de 8,0 a 16,2mm, entre o teto superior do canal mandibular e a porção do rebordo alveolar residual, com espessura mínima de 5,0mm para a instalação do implante. Conclusão: na maioria dos casos avaliados, existiu osso suficiente em altura e espessura para uma adequada instalação de implantes osseointegrados.

Palavras-chave: Tomografia; Implantes Dentários; Nervo Mandibular.

 

Abstract: Aim: determine, by means of computerized tomography, the bone availability for implantation in the edentate region of the lower first molar, regarding the localization of the mandibular canal. Methodology: thirty-two computerized tomographies of edentate jaws in the region of the lower first molar were evaluated. For the measurements, the crest of the residual alveolar process was discarded, until a width of 5.0mm was reached. From there, the distance until the roof of the mandibular canal was measured. Results: there was an average of 11.625mm of the bone tissue, ranging from 8.0 a 16.2mm between the roof of the mandibular canal and the residual alveolar process, with a minimum thickness of 5.0mm for the implant installation. Conclusion: in the majority of the cases there was enough bone in height and width for osseointegrated implants.

Key words: Tomography; Dental Implants; Mandibular Canal.

 

1 CD, Me, Dr, Professor, Departamento de Odontologia, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, UFSC, Florianópolis, SC, Brasil.
2 CD, Me, Dr, Professor, Curso de Odontologia, Faculdade da Saúde, Universidade Metodista de São Paulo, São Bernardo do Campo, SP, Brasil.
3 CD, Me, Dr, Professor, Departamento de Odontologia, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, UFSC, Florianópolis, SC, Brasil.
4 CD, Me, Dr, Faculdade de Odontologia de São José dos Campos, UNESP, São José dos Campos, SP, Brasil.
5 CD, Me, Dr, Professora, Departamento de Biociências e Diagnóstico Bucal, Faculdade de Odontologia de São José dos Campos, UNESP, São José dos Campos, SP, Brasil.

 

Literatura Citada

1. Chaushu G, Taicher S, Halamish-Shani T, Givol N. Medicolegal aspects of altered sensation following implant placement in the mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17(3): 413-415.

2. Angelopoulos C, Thomas S, Hechler S, Parissis N, Hlavacek M. Comparison between digital panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the identification of the mandibular canal as part of presurgical dental implant assessment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 66(10): 2130-2135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.021

3. Tyndall AA, Brooks SL. Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: a position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000; 89(5): 630-637. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2000.106336

4. Peker I, Alkurt MT, Michcioglu T. The use of 3 different imaging methods for the localization of the mandibular canal in dental implant planning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23(3): 463-470.

5. Oliveira SHG, Leite HF, Menezes ACSC, Shiffer C. Estudo da localizaçäo do canal da mandíbula na regiäo edêntula de primeiro molar inferior / Study of the localization of the mandibular canal in the edentate region of the lower first molar. Rev Assoc Paul Cir Dent 2000; 54(5): 372-374.

6. Beumer FH, Lewis SG. Sistema de implantes Branemark. Procedimentos clínicos e laboratoriais. 1ed. São Paulo: Pancast; 1993.

7. Aryatawong S, Aryatawong K. Evaluation of the inferior alveolar canal by cross-sectional hypocycloidal tomography. Implant Dent 2000; 9(4): 339-345. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-200009040-00010

8. Nortje CJ, Farman AG, Grotepass FW. Variations in the normal anatomy of the inferior dental (mandibular) canal: a retrospective study of panoramic radiographs from 3612 routine dental patients. Br J Oral Surg 1977; 15(1): 55-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-117X(77)90008-7

9. Gowgiel JM. The position and course of the mandibular canal. J Oral Implantol 1992; 18(4): 383-385.

10. Obradovic O, Todorovic L, Vitanovic V. Anatomical considerations relevant to implant procedures in the mandible. Bull Group Int Rech Sci Stomatol Odontol 1995; 38(1-2): 39-44.

11. Lindh C, Petersson A, Klinge B. Measurements of distances related to the mandibular canal in radiographs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995; 6(2): 96-103. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060205.x

12. Frei C, Buser D, Dula K. Study on the necessity for cross-section imaging of the posterior mandible for treatment planning of standard cases in implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15(4): 490-497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01032.x

13. Klinge B, Pettersson A, Maly P. Location of the mandibular canal: comparison of macroscopic findings, conventional radiography, and computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989; 4(4): 327-332.

14. Bouserhal C, Jacobs R, Quirynen M, 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(3): 156-172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2002.tb00167.x

15. Ylikontiola L, Moberg K, Huumonen S, Soikkonen K, Oikarinen K. Comparison of three radiographic methods used to locate the mandibular canal in the buccolingual direction before bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002; 93(6): 736-742. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2002.122639

16. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L. Impact of conventional tomography on prediction of the appropriate implant size. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001; 92(4): 458-463. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2001.118286

17. Rockenbach MIB, Sampaio MCC, Costa LJ, Costa NP. Evaluation of mandibular implant sites: correlation between panoramic and linear tomography. Braz Dent J 2003; 14(3): 209-213. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402003000300013

18. Shepard WK, Ducar JP, London RM. Planning for implant placement. J Calif Dent Assoc 1995; 23(3): 14-18.