SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Diş Hekimliği Bilimleri Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3

Retrospective Evaluation of Implant Complications Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography

Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi Kullanılarak İmplant Komplikasyonlarının Retrospektif Değerlendirilmesi

Emre Haylaz(SAKARYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-7330-9525
Şeyda Say(SAKARYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ FAKÜLTESİ)0009-0007-8691-619X
Pages
165–171
Publication Date
2025-12-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings indicate that considering region-specific anatomical risks during implant planning plays a crucial role in preventing complications.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate complications observed in dental implants using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and to determine the distribution of these complications based on jaw and region.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included a total of 83 patients (44 females and 39 males), comprising 385 dental implants analyzed using CBCT images.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings indicate that considering region-specific anatomical risks during implant planning plays a crucial role in preventing complications.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:İmplant · komplikasyon · maksilla

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate complications observed in dental implants using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and to determine the distribution of these complications based on jaw and region. In addition, the study aimed to reveal the differences in complication frequency according to implant placement sites. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included a total of 83 patients (44 females and 39 males), comprising 385 dental implants analyzed using CBCT images. Implant-related complications were categorized into eight groups: bone perforation, vertical bone resorption, mandibular canal perforation, palatal/lingual bone perforation, mental foramen perforation, insufficient implant-teet distance, nasal perforation, and sinus perforation. The implants with complications were recorded according to their localization as maxilla anterior, maxilla posterior, mandible anterior, and mandible posterior. Results: Complications were detected in 162 (42.1%) of the 385 evaluated implants. The most frequently observed complication in both jaws was vertical bone resorption around the implant (37.7%), followed by buccal bone perforation (27.2%). The incidence of complications was significantly higher in the maxilla (58.6%) compared to the mandible (p < 0.05). In terms of localization, complications were most commonly observed in the maxillary posterior region (41.4%), followed by the mandibular posterior (29.1%), maxillary anterior (16.6%), and mandibular anterior (12.3%) regions, respectively. Conclusions: Vertical bone resorption was found to be the most common complication associated with dental implants, and complications were observed more frequently in the maxillary posterior region. These findings indicate that considering region-specific anatomical risks during implant planning plays a crucial role in preventing complications.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, dental implantlarda görülen komplikasyonların konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) kullanılarak değerlendirilmesi ve bu komplikasyonların çene ve bölge bazında dağılımının belirlenmesidir. Ayrıca, implant yerleşim bölgesine göre komplikasyon sıklığındaki farklılıkların ortaya konması hedeflenmiştir. Materyal ve Metod: Toplam 83 hastadan oluşan (44 kadın, 39 erkek) hastaların retrospektif olarak değerlendirildiği bu çalışmada, yerleştirilen toplam 385 dental implant KIBT görüntüleri kullanılarak analiz edildi. İmplantlara ilişkin komplikasyonlar; kemik perforasyonu, vertikal kemik rezorpsiyonu, mandibular kanal perforasyonu, palatinal/lingual kemik perforasyonu, mental foramen perforasyonu, yetersiz implant-diş arası mesafe, nazal perforasyon ve sinüs perforasyonu olmak üzere sekiz grupta kategorize edildi. Komplikasyonun meydana geldiği implantlar, bulundukları lokalizasyona göre maksilla anterior, maksilla posterior, mandibula anterior ve mandibula posterior olarak kaydedildi. Bulgular: Değerlendirilen 385 implantın 162’sinde (%42,1) komplikasyon tespit edildi. Her iki çenede en sık gözlenen komplikasyon, implant çevresinde gelişen vertikal kemik rezorpsiyonu (%37,7) olurken, bunu bukkal kemik perforasyonu (%27,2) izledi. Komplikasyonların görülme oranı maksillada (%58,6), mandibulaya göre anlamlı olarak daha yüksek bulundu (p< 0,05). Lokalizasyon açısından değerlendirildiğinde, komplikasyonlar en sık maksilla posterior bölgede (%41,4) saptanırken; bunu sırasıyla mandibula posterior (%29,1), maksilla anterior (%16,6) ve mandibula anterior (%12,3) bölgeler takip etti. Sonuç: Dental implantlarda en sık karşılaşılan komplikasyonun vertikal kemik rezorpsiyonu olduğu ve komplikasyonların özellikle maksilla posterior bölgede daha yüksek oranda görüldüğü saptandı. Elde edilen bulgular, implant planlamasında anatomik bölgeye özgü risklerin dikkate alınmasının komplikasyonların önlenmesinde önemli olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Haylaz, E., Say, Ş. (2025). Retrospective Evaluation of Implant Complications Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. Uluslararası Diş Hekimliği Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3, 165–171. https://doi.org/10.21306/dishekimligi.1817433

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (34)

  1. Kayabasoglu G, Nacar A, Altundag A, Cayonu M, Muhtarogullari M, Cingi C. A retrospective analysis of the relationship between rhinosinusitis and sinus lift dental implantation. Head Face Med. 2014;10:53.
  2. Chan HL, Misch K, Wang HL. Dental imaging in implant treatment planning. Implant Dent. 2010;19:288-298.
  3. Harris D, Horner K, Gröndahl K, Jacobs R, Helmrot E, Benic GI, Bornstein MM, Dawood A, Quirynen M. EAO guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry 2011. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:1243-1253.
  4. Gupta S, Patil N, Solanki J, Singh R, Laller S. Oral implant imaging: a review. Malays J Med Sci. 2015;22:7-17.
  5. Nagarajan A, Perumalsamy R, Thyagarajan R, Namasivayam A. Diagnostic imaging for dental implant therapy. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2014;4:4.
  6. Gaêta-Araujo H, Oliveira-Santos N, Mancini AXM, Oliveira ML, Oliveira-Santos C. Retrospective assessment of dental implant-related perforations of relevant anatomical structures and inadequate spacing between implants/teeth using cone-beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24:3281-3288.
  7. Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC. Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012;113:817-826.
  8. Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M, Hassan B, Bornstein MM. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18:88.
  9. Ergün G, Şahin Z. İmplant tedavisinde diagnostik görüntüleme tekniklerine bağlı komplikasyonlar. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2018;28:429-442.
  10. Ramanauskaite A, Roccuzzo A, Schwarz F. A systematic review on the influence of the horizontal distance between two adjacent implants inserted in the anterior maxilla on the inter‐implant mucosa fill. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:62-70.
  11. Clark D, Barbu H, Lorean A, Mijiritsky E, Levin L. Incidental findings of implant complications on postimplantation CBCTs: A cross‐sectional study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;19:776-782.
  12. Song D, Shujaat S, de Faria Vasconcelos K, Huang Y, Politis C, Lambrichts I, Jacobs R. Diagnostic accuracy of CBCT versus intraoral imaging for assessment of periimplant bone defects. BMC Med Imaging. 2021;21:23.
  13. Kormas I, Pedercini C, Pedercini A, Raptopoulos M, Alassy H, Wolff LF. Peri-implant diseases: diagnosis, clinical, histological, microbiological characteristics and treatment strategies. A narrative review. Antibiotics (Basel). 2020;9:835.
  14. Dumanlı D, Şeker Ç, Geduk G. Retrospective radiographic evaluation of implant complications: CBCTbased study. Necmettin Erbakan Univ Dent J. 2024;9:9-17.
  15. Quirynen M, Abarca M, Van Assche N, Nevins M, Van Steenberghe D. Impact of supportive periodontal therapy and implant surface roughness on implant outcome in patients with a history of periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol. 2007;34:805-815.
  16. Carmichael R, Apse P, Zarb G, McCulloch C. Biological, microbiological and clinical aspects of the peri-implant mucosa. The Brånemark Osseointegrated Implant. Chicago: Quintessence; 1989:39-78.
  17. Listgarten MA, Lang N, Schroeder H, Schroeder A. Periodontal tissues and their counterparts around endosseous implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1991;2:1-19.
  18. Ghahroudi AR, Talaeepour A, Mesgarzadeh A, Rokn A, Khorsand A, Mesgarzadeh N, Fard MK. Radiographic vertical bone loss evaluation around dental implants following one year of functional loading. J Dent (Tehran). 2010;7:89-95.
  19. Hedayatipanah M, Arasteh HK, Shokri A, Alafchi B, Baghdadi LS. Effect of vertical implant position on marginal bone loss: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24:727.
  20. Pellicer-Chover H, Díaz-Sanchez M, SotoPeñaloza D, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Canullo L, Peñarrocha-Oltra D. Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement upon changes in marginal periimplant bone level. A systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2019;24:e673-e681.
  21. Bressan E, Guazzo R, Tomasi C, Pena TG, Galindo-Moreno P, Caponio VCA, Sbricoli L, Canullo L. Influence of soft tissue thickness on marginal bone level around dental implants: a systematic review with meta‐analysis and trial‐ sequential analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023;34:405-415.
  22. Misch K, Wang HL. Implant surgery complications: etiology and treatment. Implant Dent. 2008;17:159-168.
  23. de-Azevedo-Vaz SL, Peyneau PD, RamirezSotelo LR, de Faria Vasconcelos K, Campos PSF, Haiter-Neto F. Efficacy of a cone beam computed tomography metal artifact reduction algorithm for the detection of peri-implant fenestrations and dehiscences. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2016;121:550-556.
  24. Wang TY, Kuo PJ, Fu E, Kuo HY, Chang NNS, Fu MW, Shen EC, Chiu HC. Risks of angled implant placement on posterior mandible buccal/lingual plated perforation: A virtual immediate implant placement study using CBCT. J Dent Sci. 2019;14:234-240.
  25. Pelayo JL, Diago MP, Bowen EM, Diago MP. Intraoperative complications during oral implantology. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2008;13:239-243.
  26. Greenstein G, Cavallaro J, Romanos G, Tarnow D. Clinical recommendations for avoiding and managing surgical complications associated with implant dentistry: a review. J Periodontol. 2008;79:1317-1329.
  27. Felisati G, Lozza P, Chiapasco M, Borloni R. Endoscopic removal of an unusual foreign body in the sphenoid sinus: an oral implant. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18:776-780.
  28. Ozmarasali AI, Kaplan AD, Eser P, Yilmazlar S. Dental implant misplacement into the anterior cranial fossae: a unique case and review of literature. Neurochirurgie. 2024;70:101533.
  29. Wolff J, Karagozoglu KH, Bretschneider JH, Forouzanfar T, Schulten EA. Altered nasal airflow: an unusual complication following implant surgery in the anterior maxilla. Int J Implant Dent. 2016;2:6.
  30. Worthington P. Injury to the inferior alveolar nerve during implant placement: a formula for protection of the patient and clinician. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19.
  31. Başa O, Dilek OC. Assessment of the risk of perforation of the mandibular canal by implant drill using density and thickness parameters. Gerodontology. 2011;28:213-220.
  32. Tal H, Moses O. A comparison of panoramic radiography with computed tomography in the planning of implant surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1991;20:40-42.
  33. Zetu L, Wang HL. Management of interdental/inter-implant papilla. J Clin Periodontol. 2005;32:831-839.
  34. Ng K, Fan M, Leung M, Fokas G, Mattheos N. Peri‐implant inflammation and marginal bone level changes around dental implants in relation to proximity with and bone level of adjacent teeth. Aust Dent J. 2018;63:467-477.