Does low gonial angle affect the Amount of Bone Loss Around implant in the posterior mandible?

Year 2021, Volume: 8 Issue: 3, 644 - 647, 31.12.2021

Emrah Dilaver , Muazzez Suzen , Kıvanç Berke Ak , Sina Uçkan

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.743119

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether there is a role of the low gonial angle on marginal bone resorption around the implants placed in the posterior mandible. Methods: This retrospective study, including 20 patients with 46 implants followed 36 months were inserted in the toothless posterior area. Patients without systemic disease were included in this study. The gonial angle was measured on a panoramic x-ray; Patients with a gonial angle of more than 1250were classified as high gonial angle, and those with less than 1200 were classified as a low gonial angle group. Mesial and distal marginal bone resorption and implant angulation with the occlusal plane were measured via Image J software (National Institutes of Health; version 1.5i, USA). Independent samples t-test was used to compare measured variables between high and low gonial angle groups. Results: The mean marginal bone resorption (MBL) was 0.27±0.16 mm for the mesial side and 0.27±0.13mm for the distal side in the LGA group. In the HGA group, MBL was 0.77±0.28mm for the mesial side and 0.71±0.27mm for the distal side. There was no statistical significance between HGA and LGA groups regarding marginal bone resorption. However, implant angulation with the occlusal plane was correlated with marginal bone resorption in the HGA group. Conclusion: The result of this study is that a low gonial angle is not directly a risk factor for marginal bone resorption around the dental implant. However, implants should be placed perpendicular to the occlusal plane as possible in the HGA group.

Keywords

Gonial angle, marginal bone resorption, implant surgery

Düşük gonial açı posterior mandibuladaki İmplant Etrafındaki Kemik Kaybı Miktarını etkiler mi?

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı; posterior mandibulaya yerleştirilen implantların etrafındaki marjinal kemik rezorpsiyonunda, düşük gonial açının bir rolünün olup olmadığının araştırılmasıdır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu retrospektif çalışmada; 36 aylık takibi olan toplam 20 hastada yapılan 46 implant alt çene posterior dişsiz alana yerleştirildi. Sistemik hastalığı olmayan olgular çalışmaya dahil edildi. Gonial açı panaromik röntgen üzerinde ölçülüp; 1250 den fazla olan hastalar yüksek gonial açı, 1200 den az olanlar ise düşük gonial açı grubu olarak sınıflandırıldı. Mezial, distal marjinal kemik rezorpsiyonu ve implantın okluzal düzlemle olan açılanması Image J yazılımı (National Institutes of Health; sürüm 1.5i, USA) ile ölçüldü. Yüksek (HGA) ve düşük gonial açı grupları (LGA) arasındaki farkı karşılaştırmak için bağımsız gruplar t testi kullanıldı. Bulgular: Ortalama marjinal kemik rezorpsiyonu (MBL), düşük gonial açı grubunda; mezial taraf için 0.27 ± 0.16 mm ve distal taraf için 0.27 ± 0.13 mm idi. Yüksek gonial açı grubunda mezial taraf için 0.77 ± 0.28mm ve distal taraf için 0.71 ± 0.27mm idi. Yüksek ve düşük gonial açı grubu arasında marjinal kemik rezorpsiyonu açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunmadı. Ancak; yüksek gonial açı grubunda; implantın okluzal düzlem ile açılanmasının marjinal kemik rezorpsiyonu ile korele olduğu tespit edildi (p<0.05). Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın sonucunda, düşük gonial açının implant çevresindeki marjinal kemik rezorpsiyonu açısından doğrudan bir risk faktörü olmadığı görülmüştür. Bununla birlikte; implantlar HGA grubunda mümkün olduğunca oklüzal düzleme dik olarak yerleştirilmelidir

Keywords

Gonial açı, marjinal kemik rezorpsiyonu, implant cerrahisi

References

• 1. Park J-H., Kim Y-K., Yun P-Y., Yi Y-J., Yeo I-S., Lee hyo-jung., et al. Analysis of factors affecting crestal bone loss around the implants. J Korean Dent Sci 2009;3:12–7. 2. Hermann JS., Cochran DL., Nummikoski P V., Buser D. Crestal Bone Changes Around Titanium Implants. A Radiographic Evaluation of Unloaded Nonsubmerged and Submerged Implants in the Canine Mandible. J Periodontol 1997. Doi: 10.1902/jop.1997.68.11.1117. 3. Factors affecting late implant bone loss: A retrospective analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2007. Doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(07)60094-8. 4. Albrektsson T., Buser D., Sennerby L. Crestal Bone Loss and Oral Implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012. Doi: 10.1111/cid.12013. 5. Howe MS., Keys W., Richards D. Long-term (10-year) dental implant survival: A systematic review and sensitivity meta-analysis. J Dent 2019;84(March):9–21. Doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.03.008. 6. Sadowsky SJ. Occlusal overload with dental implants: a review. Int J Implant Dent 2019;5(1). Doi: 10.1186/s40729-019-0180-8. 7. Johansson A., Omar R., Carlsson GE. Bruxism and prosthetic treatment: A critical review. J Prosthodont Res 2011;55(3):127–36. Doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2011.02.004. 8. Fu J-H., Hsu Y-T., Wang H-L. Identifying occlusal overload and how to deal with it to avoid marginal bone loss around implants. Eur J Oral Implantol 2012;5 Suppl(May 2018):S91-103. 9. Van Spronsen PH., Koolstra JH., Van Ginkel FC., Weijs WA., Valk J., Prahl-Andersen B. Relationships between the orientation and moment arms of the human jaw muscles and normal craniofacial morphology. Eur J Orthod 1997. Doi: 10.1093/ejo/19.3.313. 10. Ringqvist M. Isometric bite force and its relation to dimensions of the facial skeleton. Acta Odontol Scand 1973. Doi: 10.3109/00016357309004611. 11. Sassouni V. A classification of skeletal facial types. Am J Orthod 1969. Doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(69)90122-5. 12. Ahmad R., Abu-Hassan M., Chen J., Li Q., Swain M. The Relationship of Mandibular Morphology with Residual Ridge Resorption Associated with Implant-Retained Overdentures. Int J Prosthodont 2016. Doi: 10.11607/ijp.4726. 13. Ogawa T., Osato S., Shishido Y., Okada M., Misaki K. Relationships between the gonial angle and mandibular ramus morphology in dentate subjects: A panoramic radiophotometric study. J Oral Implantol 2012. Doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-09-00143. 14. Qian J., Wennerberg A., Albrektsson T. Reasons for Marginal Bone Loss around Oral Implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012. Doi: 10.1111/cid.12014. 15. Sadowsky SJ. Occlusal overload with dental implants: a review. Int J Implant Dent 2019. Doi: 10.1186/s40729-019-0180-8. 16. Moller E. The chewing apparatus. An electromyographic study of the action of the muscles of mastication and its correlation to facial morphology. Acta Physiol Scand Suppl 1966. Doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(67)90123-6. 17. Takada K., Lowe AA., Freund VK. Canonical correlations between masticatory muscle orientation and dentoskeletal morphology in children. Am J Orthod 1984. Doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90144-1. 18. Mercier P., Lafontant R. Residual alveolar ridge atrophy: Classification and influence of facial morphology. J Prosthet Dent 1979. Doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(79)90363-9. 19. Calvo-Guirado JL., López-López PJ., Pérez-Albacete Martínez C., Javed F., Granero-Marín JM., Maté Sánchez de Val JE., et al. Peri-implant bone loss clinical and radiographic evaluation around rough neck and microthread implants: a 5-year study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018. Doi: 10.1111/clr.12775. 20. Ata-Ali J., Peñarrocha-Oltra D., Candel-Marti E., Peñarrocha-Diago M. Oral rehabilitation with tilted dental implants: A metaanalysis. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2012. Doi: 10.4317/medoral.17674. 21. Monje A., Chan H-L., Suarez F., Galindo-Moreno P., Wang H-L. Marginal bone loss around tilted implants in comparison to straight implants: a meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27(6):1576–83.