Purpose: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the prevalence of dental implants positioning errors and their associations with adjacent structures and anatomical variations by means of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: CBCT images of 207 patients (584 dental implants) were evaluated by 2 oral radiologists. The distance between the implant and the adjacent teeth/implants was measured and classified as adequate (≥1.5 mm and ≥3 mm, respectively) or inadequate. The presence of thread exposure, cortical perforation, implant dehiscence, implant penetration into adjacent structures, and anatomical variations was also recorded. The incisor canal diameter and the depth of the concavity of the submandibular fossa were measured in order to evaluate their correlations with the frequency of implant penetration in these structures. Descriptive analyses, the Fisher exact test, and Spearman correlation analysis were performed (α= 0.05). Results: The overall prevalence of positioning errors was 82.9%. The most common error was the inadequate distance between the implant and the adjacent teeth/implants. The presence of anatomical variations did not significantly influence the overall prevalence of errors (P>0.05). There was a positive correlation between the diameter of the incisor canal and the frequency of implant penetration in this structure (r= 0.232, P<0.05). Conclusion There was a high prevalence of dental implant positioning errors, and positioning errors were not associated with the presence of anatomical variations. Professionals should be aware of the space available for implant placement during the preoperative planning stage.

PURPOSE: Sufficient area in the interforaminal region is required for dental implant placement, and the anterior loop of the mandibular canal is located within the limits of this area. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and extent of the anterior loop in a Brazilian sample population using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: CBCT images from 250 patients (500 hemimandibles) obtained for various clinical indications were randomly selected and evaluated to determine the presence and length of the anterior loop. The length of the anterior loop was then compared based on gender, age, and the side of the mandible. The data were analyzed using the Pearson chi-square test and linear regression analysis. RESULTS: An anterior loop was identified in 41.6% of the cases, and its length ranged from 0.25 mm to 4.00 mm (mean, 1.1±0.8 mm). The loop had a greater mean length and was significantly more prevalent in males (p=0.014). No significant differences were found between the right and left sides regarding length (p=0.696) or prevalence (p=0.650). CONCLUSION: In this study, a high prevalence of the anterior loop of the mandibular canal was found, and although its length varied greatly, in most cases it was less than 1 mm long. Although this is a prevalent anatomical variation, safety limits for the placement of implants in this region cannot be established before an accurate evaluation using imaging techniques in order to identify and preserve the neurovascular bundles.
Anatomic Variation ; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography* ; Dental Implants ; Humans ; Linear Models ; Male ; Mandible ; Prevalence

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the influence of kilovoltage- peak (kVp) and the metal artifact reduction (MAR) tool on the detection of buccal and lingual peri-implant dehiscence in the presence of titanium-zirconia (Ti-Zr) and zirconia (Zr) implants in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Materials and Methods: Twenty implant sites were created in the posterior region of human mandibles, including control sites (without dehiscence) and experimental sites (with dehiscence). Individually, a Ti-Zr or Zr implant was placed in each implant site. CBCT scans were performed using a Picasso Trio device, with variation in the kVp setting (70 or 90 kVp) and whether the MAR tool was used. Three oral radiologists scored the detection of dehiscence using a 5-point scale. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated and compared by multi-way analysis of variance (α= 0.05). Results: The kVp, cortical plate involved (buccal or lingual cortices), and MAR did not influence any diagnostic values (P>0.05). The material of the implant did not influence the ROC curve values (P>0.05). In contrast, the sensitivity and specificity were statistically significantly influenced by the implant material (P<0.05) with Zr implants showing higher sensitivity values and lower specificity values than Ti-Zr implants. Conclusion The detection of peri-implant dehiscence was not influenced by kVp, use of the MAR tool, or the cortical plate. Greater sensitivity and lower specificity were shown for the detection of peri-implant dehiscence in the presence of a Zr implant.