4.4 Article

Incidental findings of implant complications on postimplantation CBCTs: A cross-sectional study

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cid.12511

关键词

dental implants; gingival health; implant failure; implant survival; prevention; perforation; success

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Survival rates of dental implants are reported to be very high and seem to indicate minimal complications related to dental implants. Purpose: The aim of this report was to evaluate in a cross-sectional study the prevalence of implant positioning complications as appears in postimplantation Cone-Beam Computerized Tomography (CBCT) in two of the major imaging facilities in Bucharest, Romania. Methods: Demographic and implant data was collected from two of the three main CBCT facilities in Bucharest, Romania. All postimplantation CBCT imaging were assessed and evaluated for the presence of different implant positioning related complications. Data were entered into Excel spreadsheet and analyzed statistically. Results: Of the 2323 CBCT's that were analyzed, a total of 160 (6.89%) presented with implant positioning related complications. Out of those, 62 cases revealed penetration of the implant to adjacent anatomic structure. More specifically, there were 21 instances of sinus penetration, 19 instances of nasal cavity penetration, 9 instances of inferior alveolar canal penetration, and 13 instances of lingual plate perforations. There were also 15 cases of adjacent tooth injury noted. Conclusions: Despite the popularity of dental implants, the surgical placement of these implants is not a riskless procedure. Implant mal-positioning might be life-threatening and can lead to serious bleeding, airway obstruction, and unnecessary postoperative surgeries. Complications of dental implants are not obsolete and dental implant associated problems may not be apparent immediately. Surgeons must have proper training and use evidenced-based treatment planning in order to prevent dental implant complications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据