Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1777049
Original Article

Assessment of Posterior Maxillary Alveolar Bone for Immediate Implant Placement: A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis

Hussain M. Alkhames 
1   Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Implantology, College of Dentistry, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia
,
Ramy Moustafa Moustafa Ali
1   Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Implantology, College of Dentistry, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia
2   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt
,
Sukinah Sameer Alzouri
3   Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia
,
Mohamed Bayome
4   Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia
5   Department of Postgraduate Studies, Universidad Autonóma del Paraguay, Asunción, Paraguay
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia [project No. grant 4437]
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The aims of this study were to evaluate posterior maxillary alveolar bone dimensions and to compare these dimensions in males and females.

Materials and Methods The sample consisted of 102 cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images for 62 male patients (mean age 29.92 ± 9.04 years) and 40 female patients (mean age 29.70 ± 9.54 years). Four distances and three densities were measured; a multivariate analysis of variance and Mann–Whitney's U test were applied to compare the differences between sexes.

Results For the first maxillary molar, there were significant differences between males and females in terms of coronal width (13.95 ± 1.31 and 13.22 ± 1.159 mm, respectively) and middle width (14.28 ± 1.43 and 13.57 ± 1.478 mm, respectively). However, no significant difference was found regarding height (7.93 ± 3.8 mm for both) or apical width (14.68 ± 2 mm for both). Regarding the second maxillary molar, significant differences between males and females were found in terms of coronal width (14.66 ± 1.63 and 13.54 ± 1.512 mm, respectively), middle width (14.35 ± 1.825 and 13.25 ± 1.52 mm, respectively), and height (7.29 ± 3.00 and 8.66 ± 3.16 mm, respectively), whereas the gender dimorphism regarding apical width had borderline significance (14.09 ± 1.731 mm; p = 0.048). No significant differences were found regarding density.

Conclusion The minimum average alveolar bone height for the second maxillary molar region was 7.29 ± 30 mm with significant gender dimorphism. Therefore, CBCT scans should be recommended prior to immediate implant placement.

Keywords

immediate implant - maxillary bone - maxillary molars - bone height - bone density - CBCT

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted by the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of KFU-REC-2021- DEC-EA000322.


Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.




Publication History

Article published online:
08 February 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Cosyn J, De Lat L, Seyssens L, Doornewaard R, Deschepper E, Vervaeke S. The effectiveness of immediate implant placement for single tooth replacement compared to delayed implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 2019; 46 (Suppl. 21) 224-241
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Ragucci GM, Elnayef B, Criado-Cámara E, Del Amo FSL, Hernández-Alfaro F. Immediate implant placement in molar extraction sockets: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent 2020; 6 (01) 40
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Kan JYK, Rungcharassaeng K, Deflorian M, Weinstein T, Wang HL, Testori T. Immediate implant placement and provisionalization of maxillary anterior single implants. Periodontol 2000 2018; 77 (01) 197-212
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Trombelli L, Farina R, Marzola A, Bozzi L, Liljenberg B, Lindhe J. Modeling and remodeling of human extraction sockets. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35 (07) 630-639
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Barone A, Ricci M, Tonelli P, Santini S, Covani U. Tissue changes of extraction sockets in humans: a comparison of spontaneous healing vs. ridge preservation with secondary soft tissue healing. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24 (11) 1231-1237
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Zhang Y, Ruan Z, Shen M. et al. Clinical effect of platelet-rich fibrin on the preservation of the alveolar ridge following tooth extraction. Exp Ther Med 2018; 15 (03) 2277-2286
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Ten Heggeler JMAG, Slot DE, Van der Weijden GA. Effect of socket preservation therapies following tooth extraction in non-molar regions in humans: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22 (08) 779-788
    Google Scholar
  • 8 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 (04) 313-323
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Javaid MA, Khurshid Z, Zafar MS, Najeeb S. Immediate implants: clinical guidelines for esthetic outcomes. Dent J 2016; 4 (02) 21
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Rues S, Schmitter M, Kappel S, Sonntag R, Kretzer JP, Nadorf J. Effect of bone quality and quantity on the primary stability of dental implants in a simulated bicortical placement. Clin Oral Investig 2021; 25 (03) 1265-1272
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Buser D, Chappuis V, Belser UC, Chen S. Implant placement post extraction in esthetic single tooth sites: when immediate, when early, when late?. Periodontol 2000 2017; 73 (01) 84-102
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Norton MR, Gamble C. Bone classification: an objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12 (01) 79-84
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Whyte A, Boeddinghaus R. The maxillary sinus: physiology, development and imaging anatomy. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2019; 48 (08) 20190205
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Moraschini V, Uzeda MG, Sartoretto SC, Calasans-Maia MD. Maxillary sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant placement without grafting materials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 46 (05) 636-647
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Liu H, Liu R, Wang M, Yang J. Immediate implant placement combined with maxillary sinus floor elevation utilizing the transalveolar approach and nonsubmerged healing for failing teeth in the maxillary molar area: a randomized controlled trial clinical study with one-year follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019; 21 (03) 462-472
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Sun Z, Smith T, Kortam S, Kim DG, Tee BC, Fields H. Effect of bone thickness on alveolar bone-height measurements from cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139 (02) e117-e127
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Zhang X, Li Y, Ge Z, Zhao H, Miao L, Pan Y. The dimension and morphology of alveolar bone at maxillary anterior teeth in periodontitis: a retrospective analysis-using CBCT. Int J Oral Sci 2020; 12 (01) 4
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Sheerah H, Othman B, Jaafar A, Alsharif A. Alveolar bone plate measurements of maxillary anterior teeth: a retrospective cone beam computed tomography study, AlMadianh, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Dent J 2019; 31 (04) 437-444
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Ryu JH, Park JH, Vu Thi Thu T, Bayome M, Kim Y, Kook YA. Palatal bone thickness compared with cone-beam computed tomography in adolescents and adults for mini-implant placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 142 (02) 207-212
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Ravinder R, Dubey P, Raj S, Mishra P, Rajput A. Immediate implant placement in posterior maxilla: a prospective clinical study. Journal of Osseointegration 2021; 13 (04) 185-190
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Thirunavakarasu R, Arun M, Abhinav RP, Ganesh BS. Commonly Used Implant Dimensions in the Posterior Maxilla-A Retrospective Study. Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants 2022; 32 (01) 25-32
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Mustakim KR, Eo MY, Lee JY, Myoung H, Seo MH, Kim SM. Guidance and rationale for the immediate implant placement in the maxillary molar. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2023; 49 (01) 30-42
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Choi YJ, Kim YH, Han SS. et al. Alveolar bone height according to the anatomical relationship between the maxillary molar and sinus. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2020; 50 (01) 38-47
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Demirkol M, Demirkol N. The effects of posterior alveolar bone height on the height of maxillary sinus septa. Surg Radiol Anat 2019; 41 (09) 1003-1009
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Cho HJ, Jeon JY, Ahn SJ. et al. The preliminary study for three-dimensional alveolar bone morphologic characteristics for alveolar bone restoration. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 41 (01) 33
    Google Scholar
  • 26 de Elío Oliveros J, Del Canto Díaz A, Del Canto Díaz M, Orea CJ, Del Canto Pingarrón M, Calvo JS. Alveolar bone density and width affect primary implant stability. J Oral Implantol 2020; 46 (04) 389-395
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Stumbras A, Kuliesius P, Januzis G, Juodzbalys G. Alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction using different bone graft materials and autologous platelet concentrates: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2019; 10 (01) e2
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Van Dessel J, Nicolielo LFP, Huang Y. et al. Accuracy and reliability of different cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) devices for structural analysis of alveolar bone in comparison with multislice CT and micro-CT. Eur J Oral Implantology 2017; 10 (01) 95-105
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Merheb J, Vercruyssen M, Coucke W, Quirynen M. Relationship of implant stability and bone density derived from computerized tomography images. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018; 20 (01) 50-57
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Misch CE. ed. Density of Bone: Effect in Treatment Planning, Surgical Approach, and Healing. St Louis: Mosby; 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Morar L, Băciuț G, Băciuț M. et al. Analysis of CBCT bone density using the Hounsfield scale. Prosthesis 2022; 4 (03) 414-423
    Google Scholar