Classification of sagittal root position in relation to the anterior maxillary osseous housing for immediate implant placement a cone beam computed tomography study
- 1. Classification of Sagittal Root Position in Relation to the Anterior Maxillary Osseous Housing for Immediate Implant Placement: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study Joseph Y. K. Kan, DDS, MS1/Phillip Roe, DDS, MS2/Kitichai Rungcharassaeng, DDS, MS3/ Rishi D. Patel, BDS, MS2/Tomonori Waki, DDS, PhD2/Jaime L. Lozada, DMD4/Grenith Zimmerman, PhD5 Purpose: The purpose of this study was to classify the relationship of the sagittal root positions of the maxillary anterior teeth to their respective osseous housings using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). The frequency of each classification was also reported. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review of CBCT images was conducted on 100 patients (40 men, 60 women; mean age, 53.1 years) who fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The CBCT images were evaluated and the relationship of the sagittal root position of the maxillary anterior teeth to its associated osseous housing was recorded as Class I, II, III, or IV. Results: The frequency distribution of sagittal root position of maxillary anterior teeth indicated that, of the 600 samples, 81.1%, 6.5%, 0.7%, and 11.7% were classified as Class I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Conclusions: An understanding of the clinical relevance of sagittal root position will provide adjunct data for the treatment planning of immediate implant placement and provisionalization in the anterior maxilla. A classification system may lead to improved interdisciplinary communication in treatment planning for implant-based therapy in the anterior maxilla. INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 2011;26:873–876 Key words: anterior maxilla, cone beam computed tomography, esthetics, immediate implant placement, immediate provisionalization, osseous housing, sagittal root position, single-tooth replacement, treatment planning Immediate implant placement and provisionaliza- tion (IIPP) of a single tooth in the esthetic zone was first advocated in the mid-1990s and has since for replacing failing teeth.1–9 In addition to preserv- ing tissue architecture, reducing treatment time, and providing the patient with the convenience of been considered a predictable treatment option an immediate tooth replacement,1,3,7,8 IIPP proce- dures have also been documented with high suc- cess rates when established clinical guidelines are 1Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Loma Linda followed.3,6,9 To ensure successful IIPP, in addition University School of Dentistry, Loma Linda, California. to the presence of an intact bony socket following 2 Assistant Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, extraction and the absence of active infection, pri- Loma Linda University School of Dentistry, Loma Linda, California. mary implant stability must be achieved by engag- 3Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics and ing the implant with the palatal wall and the bone Dentofacial Orthopedics, Loma Linda University School of approximately 4 to 5 mm beyond the root apex.6–8 Dentistry, Loma Linda, California. Unfortunately, because the available bone around the 4Professor and Director, Advanced Education in Implant failing tooth may not always be sufficient to achieve Dentistry, Loma Linda University School of Dentistry, Loma Linda, California. primary implant stability, alternative treatment op- 5Associate Dean and Professor, School of Allied Health tions should be considered. Factors such as root Professions, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California. length, sagittal root position (SRP), and the morpholo- gy of the osseous housing are important in determin- Correspondence to: Dr Joseph Kan, Center for Prosthodontics and Implant Dentistry, Loma Linda University School of ing the feasibility of IIPP and must be evaluated via Dentistry, Loma Linda, CA 92350. Fax: +909-558-4803. the use of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Email: [email protected] While the effect of root length on the IIPP is easily The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 873 © 2011 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.. NO PART OF MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
- 2. Kan et al Fig 1 Class I sagittal root Fig 2 Class II sagittal root Fig 3 Class III sagittal root Fig 4 Class IV sagittal root position. position. position. position. understood (the longer the root, the less available was evaluated using images from CBCT scans (i-CAT bone beyond the root apex and the more limited the Vision, Imaging Sciences International). The arch selection of implants of appropriate length), the influ- form selector tool was centered through the middle ence of the relationship between the SRP and its osse- of the arch in the axial plane. The SRP in relationship ous housing on IIPP has not been documented. to the osseous housing was evaluated by viewing the The purpose of this CBCT study was to classify the cross-sectional image made at the midpoint of the SRP with respect to the anterior maxillary osseous tooth parallel to its long axis. A proposed classifica- housing to aid in treatment planning for immediate im- tion system was used during image assessment. The plant placement. The frequency of each classification is cross-sectional images were screen-captured and in- reported and the clinical implications are discussed. dependently evaluated and classified by two exam- iners. The examiners had been previously calibrated by simultaneous evaluation of 60 randomly selected MATERIALS AND METHODS images. If any disagreements occurred regarding the classification of an image, the image was reevaluated Patient Selection concurrently by both examiners until agreement was This retrospective study was approved by the Insti- reached about the most appropriate classification. tutional Review Board of Loma Linda University and was conducted in the Center for Implant Dentistry, SRP Classification Loma Linda University School of Dentistry, California. Each SRP in relationship to its osseous housing was Pretreatment records and CBCT images (Classic i-CAT, classified as follows: Imaging Sciences International) were reviewed for pa- tients who received treatment between May 2006 and Class I: The root is positioned against the labial cor- February 2010. Forty male and 60 female patients be- tical plate (Fig 1). tween the ages of 19 and 84 years (mean, 53.1 years) Class II: The root is centered in the middle of the al- were selected according to the following criteria: at veolar housing without engaging either the labial least 18 years of age at the time of the CBCT scan; or the palatal cortical plates at the apical third of all maxillary anterior teeth (canine to canine) were the root (Fig 2). present, with at least two occluding posterior teeth Class III: The root is positioned against the palatal (premolar and/or molar) in each quadrant; no radio- cortical plate (Fig 3). graphic evidence of infection, severe root resorption, Class IV: At least two thirds of the root is engaging and/or trauma to the anterior maxillary dentition; and both the labial and palatal cortical plates (Fig 4). no radiographic evidence of surgical (guided bone/ tissue regeneration) treatment in the anterior maxil- Statistical Analysis lary dentition. Descriptive statistics were used to report the frequen- cy (number and percentage) of each classification. Data Collection The distribution of each SRP classification according For each study subject, the SRP of each maxillary to tooth position was also recorded. anterior tooth in relation to the osseous housing 874 Volume 26, Number 4, 2011 © 2011 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.. NO PART OF MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
- 3. Kan et al Table 1 Frequency Distribution of Sagittal Root Position Classification Percentage (no.) SRP Central incisor Lateral incisor Canine Overall Class I 86.5 (173) 76 (152) 81 (162) 81.1 (487) Class II 5 (10) 8.5 (17) 6 (12) 6.5 (39) Class III 0.5 (1) 1.5 (3) 0 (0) 0.7 (4) Class IV 8 (16) 14 (28) 13 (26) 11.7 (70) Total 100 (200) 100 (200) 100 (200) 100 (600) RESULTS SRP of the majority of the teeth in the present study was favorable for IIPP according to guidelines that From among the 600 SRP images evaluated in this have been established in the literature.6–8,10 study, there were eight disagreements (1.3%) be- The frequency of Class III SRP in this study was only tween the examiners. The disagreements were be- 0.7% (range, 0% to 1.5%; Table 1), illustrating the rar- tween Class I and Class IV (n = 7) and Class I and Class II ity of this root position. In the Class III SRP, the entire (n = 1). The frequency distribution of SRP classes indi- length of the root engages the palatal cortical plate; cated that, of the 600 samples, 487 (81.1%) were Class I, therefore, the stability of the implant relies on its en- 39 (6.5%) were Class II, 4 (0.7%) were Class III, and 70 gagement in the available bone on the labial aspect. (11.7%) were Class IV (Table 1). Because of the increased trabecular nature of the la- The frequency distribution was categorized ac- bial bone, there is a higher tendency for labial bone cording to tooth position and SRP (Class I, II, III, and IV) resorption as a result of peri-implant bone remod- (Table 1). The central incisors presented with 86.5%, eling. Furthermore, labial concavities, occasionally 5%, 0.5%, and 8%, respectively, of Class I, II, III, and IV. observed near the base of the anterior maxilla, can The lateral incisors presented with 76.5%, 8.5%, 1.5%, potentially lead to fenestration/perforation when la- and 14%, respectively. The canines presented with bial implant engagement is attempted. 81%, 6%, 0%, and 13%, respectively. Only 6.5% (range, 5% to 8.5%; Table 1) of the study samples were Class II SRP, in which the root was cen- tered in the middle of the alveolar housing without en- DISCUSSION gaging either the labial or palatal cortical plates at the apical third of the root. Generally, the volume of bone Anatomically, the palatal aspect of an extraction available surrounding the extraction socket on both socket in the anterior maxilla is thicker and more cor- the palatal and labial aspects is less than what is en- tical in nature than its labial counterpart, making the countered in Class I or Class III SRPs, respectively. This former a more suitable foundation for implant place- amount of bone, while it may be sufficient to prevent ment and the latter more prone to bone resorption labial/palatal bone fenestration, may not be adequate and/or collapse. In the Class I SRP, in which the entire to ensure implant stability. Therefore, when a clinician length of the root is in contact with the labial cortical is considering IIPP procedures in a site with Class II SRP, plate, a considerable amount of bone is present on the amount of available bone beyond the apex of the the palatal aspect for implant engagement to attain extraction socket must be critically evaluated, as the primary stability during IIPP. In general, this palatal stability of the implant relies primarily on it. implant engagement leaves the labial bone intact In the Class IV SRP, which comprised 11.7% of this and results in a small gap between the implant and study’s population, the existing tooth root occupies the labial plate.8 This implant-socket gap is usually the majority of the alveolar volume, and the base of filled with bone grafting material so that an esthetic the anterior maxilla is often pedunculated. Follow- hard tissue contour can be maintained both vertically ing extraction, there is a limited amount of bone with and horizontally.8 In this study, 81.1% (range, 76% to which appropriate implant stability can be obtained. To 86.5%; Table 1) of the 600 samples had a Class I SRP. increase the predictability of the treatment, adjunctive This suggests that, regardless of tooth position, the bone grafting procedures are often necessary prior to The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 875 © 2011 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.. NO PART OF MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
- 4. Kan et al implant placement.11 Therefore, a Class IV SRP is consid- REFERENCES ered by the authors to be a contraindication for IIPP. It is interesting to note that the frequency of Class IV SRP 1. Wohrle PS. Single-tooth replacement in the aesthetic zone with immediate provisionalization: Fourteen consecutive case at the lateral incisors (14%) and canines (13%) is almost reports. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1998;10:1107–1114. twice as high as that observed at the central incisors 2. De Rouck T, Collys K, Cosyn J. Immediate single-tooth implants (8%) (Table 1). These results emphasize the importance in the anterior maxilla: A 1-year case cohort study on hard and of CBCT during diagnosis and treatment planning for soft tissue response. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:649–657. IIPP, especially in lateral incisor and canine areas. 3. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Lozada J. Immediate placement and provisionalization of maxillary anterior single implants: This study demonstrates the importance of CBCT 1-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003; as an adjunct to implant treatment planning.12–14 Pre- 18:31–39. cise assessment and preoperative planning will allow 4. Lorenzoni M, Pertl C, Zhang K, Wimmer G, Wegscheider WA. clinicians to appropriately recognize sites that are fa- Immediate loading of single-tooth implants in the anterior vorable for IIPP (Class I SRP), sites that are more tech- maxilla. Preliminary results after one year. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:180–187. nique sensitive and entail additional attentions (Class II 5. Barone A, Rispoli L, Vozza I, Quaranta A, Covani U. Immediate and Class III SRP), and sites that are contraindicated restoration of single implants placed immediately after tooth for IIPP, ie, that require hard and/or soft tissue aug- extraction. J Periodontol 2006;77:1914–1920. mentation prior to implant placement (Class IV SRP). 6. Kois JC, Kan JY. Predictable peri-implant gingival aesthetics: Surgical and prosthodontic rationales. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2001;13:691–698. 7. Garber DA, Salama MA, Salama H. Immediate total tooth CONCLUSIONS replacement. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2001;22:210–216. 8. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K. Immediate placement and provi- As the concept of immediate implant placement has sionalization of maxillary anterior single implants: A surgical become more widely accepted, understanding the and prosthodontic rationale. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 2000;12:817–824. importance of sagittal root position through the use 9. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Morimoto T, Lozada J. Facial of cone beam computed tomography will be a vital gingival tissue stability after connective tissue graft with adjunct to treatment planning of immediate implant single immediate tooth replacement in the esthetic zone: placement and provisionalization in the anterior max- Consecutive case report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67 illa. Furthermore, the proposed classification system (11, suppl):40–48. 10. Grunder U, Gracis S, Capelli M. Influence of the 3-D bone-to- for sagittal root position may lead to improved inter- implant relationship on esthetics. Int J Periodontics Restor- disciplinary communication in treatment planning ative Dent 2005;25:113–119. for implant-based therapy in the anterior maxilla. 11. McAllister BS, Haghighat K. Bone augmentation techniques. J Periodontol 2007;78:377–396. 12. Besimo CE, Lambrecht JT, Guindy JS. Accuracy of implant treatment planning utilizing template-guided reformatted computer tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000;29:46–51. 13. Fortin T, Champleboux G, Lormee J, Coudert JL. Precise dental implant placement in bone using surgical guides in conjunction with medical imaging techniques. J Oral Implan- tol 2000;26:300–303. 14. Ganz SD. Presurgical planning with CT-derived fabrication of surgical guides. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63(9, suppl 2):59–71. 876 Volume 26, Number 4, 2011 © 2011 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.. NO PART OF MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
- 5. Copyright of International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants is the property of Quintessence Publishing Company Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.