View Item 

Show simple item record

Suggested mesiodistal distance for multiple implant placement based on the natural tooth crown dimension with digital design
dc.contributor.authorLiu, Wenwen
dc.contributor.authorZhu, Fangyu
dc.contributor.authorSamal, Ankita
dc.contributor.authorWang, Hom-Lay
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-11T16:22:31Z
dc.date.available2024-01-11 11:22:30en
dc.date.available2023-01-11T16:22:31Z
dc.date.issued2022-12
dc.identifier.citationLiu, Wenwen; Zhu, Fangyu; Samal, Ankita; Wang, Hom-Lay (2022). "Suggested mesiodistal distance for multiple implant placement based on the natural tooth crown dimension with digital design." Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 24(6): 801-808.
dc.identifier.issn1523-0899
dc.identifier.issn1708-8208
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/175417
dc.description.abstractPurposeThe purpose of this investigation was to identify a mesiodistal algorithm for multiple posterior implant placement based upon an ideal prosthetically restoration design.MethodsOne hundred one cases of posterior free-end edentulous arches were selected for digital crown designs and measurements. Cone bean computed tomogram and digital fabricated crown were applied. DICOM files were exported to a viewer software (BlueSkyPlan4) to generate digital crown and measurement. The mesiodistal space between roots of adjacent teeth and center of the potential implant horizontally, from both cross-section and coronal plane were measured. Comparisons were performed using t-tests.ResultsNo significant difference was found in the distances of the maxillary and mandibular posterior implants to adjacent natural teeth (p > 0.05). For interdental/implant distances, premolars are around 4.2 mm and molars are 5.4 mm, correspondently. The second premolar interimplant distance is around 7–7.4 mm. The distance of interimplant of the first molar is about 8–8.5 mm. For the maxillary second molar, the interimplant distance is 9.26 ± 0.29 mm and the mandibular second molar interimplant distance is 9.58 ± 0.19 mm, which is significantly different. No difference was found between the two different measurement methods.ConclusionA mesiodistal algorithm of 4–4.6 (implant to adjacent canine tooth), 7–7.4, 8–8.5, and 9–9.5 mm was recommended for interimplant/tooth distance from first premolar to second molar when placing implants with or without case-specific prosthetic planning prior to surgery.
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.
dc.subject.otherCBCT
dc.subject.otherdental implants
dc.subject.otherdigital dentistry
dc.subject.otherimplant prosthetic design
dc.titleSuggested mesiodistal distance for multiple implant placement based on the natural tooth crown dimension with digital design
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelDentistry
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/175417/1/cid13135_am.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/175417/2/cid13135.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/cid.13135
dc.identifier.sourceClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChaimattayompol N, Arbree NS. Assessing the space limitation inside a complete denture for implant attachments. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89 ( 1 ): 82 - 85.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMalkoc S, Basciftci FA, Nur M, Catalbas B. Maxillary and mandibular mesiodistal tooth sizes among different malocclusions in a sample of the Turkish population. Eur J Orthod. 2011; 33 ( 5 ): 592 - 596.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCelikoglu M, Nur M, Kilkis D, Sezgin OS, Bayram M. Mesiodistal tooth dimensions and anterior and overall Bolton ratios evaluated by cone beam computed tomography. Aust Orthod J. 2013; 29 ( 2 ): 153 - 158.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAjayi EO, Ajayi YO, Oboro HO, Chukwumah NM. Mesiodistal crown dimensions of the permanent dentition in a Nigerian population. Dent Anthropol. 2010; 23 ( 2 ): 57 - 60.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePamecha S, Dayakara HR. Comparative measurement of mesiodistal width of six anterior maxillary and mandibular teeth in Rajasthan population. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2012; 12 ( 2 ): 81 - 86.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScheid RC, Weiss G. Woelfel’s Dental Anatomy. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMisch CE. Dental Implant Prosthetics. Elsevier Mosby; 2005.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScheid RC, Woelfel JB. Dental Anatomy: Its Relevance to Dentistry. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1997.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCuschieri S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019; 13 ( suppl 1 ): S31 - S34.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAlJasser RN, AlSarhan MA, Alotaibi DH, et al. Analysis of prosthetic factors affecting Peri-implant health: an in vivo retrospective study. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2021; 14: 1183 - 1191.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKatafuchi M, Weinstein BF, Leroux BG, Chen YW, Daubert DM. Restoration contour is a risk indicator for peri-implantitis: a cross-sectional radiographic analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2018; 45 ( 2 ): 225 - 232.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilson JP, Johnson TM. Frequency of adequate mesiodistal space and faciolingual alveolar width for implant placement at anterior tooth positions. J Am Dent Assoc. 2019; 150 ( 9 ): 779 - 787.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGrunder U, Gracis S, Capelli M. Influence of the 3-D bone-to-implant relationship on esthetics. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2005; 25 ( 2 ): 113 - 119.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMerheb J, Quirynen M, Teughels W. Critical buccal bone dimensions along implants. Periodontol 2000. 2014; 66 ( 1 ): 97 - 105.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTal H. Relationship between the interproximal distance of roots and the prevalence of intrabony pockets. J Periodontol. 1984; 55 ( 10 ): 604 - 607.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBecker W, Ochsenbein C, Tibbetts L, Becker BE. Alveolar bone anatomic profiles as measured from dry skulls. Clinical ramifications. J Clin Periodontol. 1997; 24 ( 10 ): 727 - 731.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHeitz-Mayfield LJA, Salvi GE. Peri-implant mucositis. J Periodontol. 2018; 89 ( suppl 1 ): S257 - S266.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYi Y, Koo KT, Schwarz F, Ben Amara H, Heo SJ. Association of prosthetic features and peri-implantitis: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Periodontol. 2020; 47 ( 3 ): 392 - 403.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStaubli N, Walter C, Schmidt JC, Weiger R, Zitzmann NU. Excess cement and the risk of peri-implant disease—a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28 ( 10 ): 1278 - 1290.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChu SJ, Kan JY, Lee EA, et al. Restorative emergence profile for single-tooth implants in healthy periodontal patients: clinical guidelines and decision-making strategies. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2019; 40 ( 1 ): 19 - 29.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLee JH, Lee JB, Park JI, Choi SH, Kim YT. Mechanical complication rates and optimal horizontal distance of the most distally positioned implant-supported single crowns in the posterior region: a study with a mean follow-up of 3 years. J Prosthodont. 2015; 24 ( 7 ): 517 - 524.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBerglundh T, Armitage G, Araujo MG, et al. Peri-implant diseases and conditions: consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 world workshop on the classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions. J Periodontol. 2018; 89 ( suppl 1 ): S313 - S318.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGalindo-Moreno P, Padial-Molina M, Nilsson P, et al. The influence of the distance between narrow implants and the adjacent teeth on marginal bone levels. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28 ( 6 ): 704 - 712.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarpentieri J, Greenstein G, Cavallaro J. Hierarchy of restorative space required for different types of dental implant prostheses. J Am Dent Assoc. 2019; 150 ( 8 ): 695 - 706.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGastaldo JF, Cury PR, Sendyk WR. Effect of the vertical and horizontal distances between adjacent implants and between a tooth and an implant on the incidence of interproximal papilla. J Periodontol. 2004; 75 ( 9 ): 1242 - 1246.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAvila-Ortiz G, Gonzalez-Martin O, Couso-Queiruga E, Wang HL. The peri-implant phenotype. J Periodontol. 2020; 91 ( 3 ): 283 - 288.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSaleh M, Galli M, Siqueira R, Rodriguez MV, Wang H-L. The prosthetic-biologic connection: what is the influence of prosthetic design on peri-implant disease? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2022; 37 ( 4 ): 690 - 699.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBerglundh T, Lindhe J, Ericsson I, Marinello CP, Liljenberg B, Thomsen P. The soft tissue barrier at implants and teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1991; 2 ( 2 ): 81 - 90.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAbrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. The mucosal barrier following abutment dis/reconnection. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol. 1997; 24 ( 8 ): 568 - 572.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBuser D, Weber HP, Donath K, Fiorellini JP, Paquette DW, Williams RC. Soft tissue reactions to non-submerged unloaded titanium implants in beagle dogs. J Periodontol. 1992; 63 ( 3 ): 225 - 235.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCochran DL, Hermann JS, Schenk RK, Higginbottom FL, Buser D. Biologic width around titanium implants. A histometric analysis of the implanto-gingival junction around unloaded and loaded nonsubmerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol. 1997; 68 ( 2 ): 186 - 198.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHermann JS, Cochran DL, Nummikoski PV, Buser D. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A radiographic evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol. 1997; 68 ( 11 ): 1117 - 1130.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVan Oosterwyck H, Duyck J, Vander Sloten J, et al. The influence of bone mechanical properties and implant fixation upon bone loading around oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998; 9 ( 6 ): 407 - 418.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEsposito M, Ekestubbe A, Grondahl K. Radiological evaluation of marginal bone loss at tooth surfaces facing single Branemark implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1993; 4 ( 3 ): 151 - 157.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS. The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol. 2000; 71 ( 4 ): 546 - 549.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSu H, Gonzalez-Martin O, Weisgold A, Lee E. Considerations of implant abutment and crown contour: critical contour and subcritical contour. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2010; 30 ( 4 ): 335 - 343.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJivraj S, Chee W. Treatment planning of implants in posterior quadrants. Br Dent J. 2006; 201 ( 1 ): 13 - 23.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSantoro M, Ayoub ME, Pardi VA, Cangialosi TJ. Mesiodistal crown dimensions and tooth size discrepancy of the permanent dentition of Dominican Americans. Angle Orthod. 2000; 70 ( 4 ): 303 - 307.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJain AK, Garg N, Singh J, Ansari A, Sangamesh B. Mesiodistal crown dimensions of the permanent dentition of a north Indian population. Indian J Dent. 2011; 2 ( 2 ): 16 - 20.
dc.working.doiNOen
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
cid13135_am.pdf
Size:
5.396MB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
cid13135.pdf
Size:
1.433MB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.