Influence of bone anatomical morphology of mandibular molars on dental implant based on CBCT

• Published in: BMC oral health 2021-10, Vol.21 (1), p.1-528, Article 528
• Main Authors: Kong, Zhuo-lin, Wang, Ge-ge, Liu, Xue-ying, Ye, Zhang-yan, Xu, Dong-qian, Ding, Xi
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Airway management; Alveolar bone; Alveolar bone morphology; Alveolar process; Classification; Clinical practice guidelines; Cone-beam computed tomography; CT imaging; Dental implant; Dental implants; Dentistry; Implant dentures; Influence; Investigations; Mandible; Mandibular molar; Measurement; Methods; Molars; Morphology; Physiological aspects; Radiation; Software; Statistical analysis; Teeth
• ISSN: 1472-6831; 1472-6831
• DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01888-3

Background To apply CBCT to investigate the anatomical relationship between the mandibular molar and alveolar bone, aimed to provide clinical guidelines for the design of implant restoration. Methods 201 CBCT data were reevaluated to measure height of the alveolar process (EF), width of the alveolar process (GH), width of the basal bone (IJ), the angle between the long axis of the first molar and the alveolar bone (â a) and the angle between the long axis of the alveolar bone and basal bone (â b). The angle and width were measured to determine the implant-prosthodontic classification of the morphology in the left lower first molar (36) and right lower first molar (46). All measurements were performed on the improved cross-sectional images. Results EF, GH and IJ were measured as (10.83 [+ or -] 1.31) mm, (13.93 [+ or -] 2.00) mm and (12.68 [+ or -] 1.96) mm for 36, respectively; and (10.87 [+ or -] 1.24) mm, (13.86 [+ or -] 1.93) mm and (12.60 [+ or -] 1.90) mm for 46, respectively. No statistical significance was observed in EF, GH, IJ, â a and â b between 36 and 46 (all P > 0.05). The morphology was divided into three categories including the straight (68.7-69.2%), oblique (19.9-20.4%) and concave types (11%). Each type was consisted of two subcategories. Conclusions The proposed classification could provide evidence for appropriate selection and direction design of the mandibular molar implant in clinical. The concave type was the most difficult to implant with the highest risk of lingual perforation. The implant length, width, direction required more attention. Keywords: Mandibular molar, Alveolar bone morphology, Cone-beam computed tomography, Dental implant