BACKGROUND: This study sought to determine which factors are correlated to a higher risk of lingual plate perforation (LPP) when placing a virtual implant in the area of the anticipated extraction site of the posterior mandible. METHODS: Computed tomographic images of 300 patients (1,279 teeth) were analyzed in regard to the shape of the mandible (convergent, parallel, or undercut type), dimensional parameters of lingual concavity (angle, height, depth) and its relation to the inferior alveolar canal (zones A, B, C), distance from root apex to inferior alveolar canal, and probability of LPP. The odds ratio of variables was determined by multiple logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: The overall probability of LPPs on virtual implant placement was 3.1%. This perforation was most commonly observed at the second molar and with a U-type ridge. After adjusting cofounders, a concave point located in zone A is 17.34 times more likely to have a LPP than one in zone C. The probability of LPPs was reduced by 34% for every 1-millimeter increase in distance from root apex to inferior alveolar canal on virtual implant placement of posterior mandible region. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomographic imaging is essential for planning immediate implant placement in the anticipated extraction sites of the posterior mandible region as proved by anatomic findings that can only be understood from preoperative imaging analysis. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Presurgical cross-sectional images can be analyzed to identify anatomic features relative to the lingual concavities in the posterior mandible region, which can help to avoid unpleasant complications, specifically when performing immediate implant procedures.
BACKGROUND: This study sought to determine which factors are correlated to a higher risk of lingual plate perforation (LPP) when placing a virtual implant in the area of the anticipated extraction site of the posterior mandible. METHODS: Computed tomographic images of 300 patients (1,279 teeth) were analyzed in regard to the shape of the mandible (convergent, parallel, or undercut type), dimensional parameters of lingual concavity (angle, height, depth) and its relation to the inferior alveolar canal (zones A, B, C), distance from root apex to inferior alveolar canal, and probability of LPP. The odds ratio of variables was determined by multiple logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: The overall probability of LPPs on virtual implant placement was 3.1%. This perforation was most commonly observed at the second molar and with a U-type ridge. After adjusting cofounders, a concave point located in zone A is 17.34 times more likely to have a LPP than one in zone C. The probability of LPPs was reduced by 34% for every 1-millimeter increase in distance from root apex to inferior alveolar canal on virtual implant placement of posterior mandible region. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomographic imaging is essential for planning immediate implant placement in the anticipated extraction sites of the posterior mandible region as proved by anatomic findings that can only be understood from preoperative imaging analysis. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Presurgical cross-sectional images can be analyzed to identify anatomic features relative to the lingual concavities in the posterior mandible region, which can help to avoid unpleasant complications, specifically when performing immediate implant procedures.