Effects of cortical bone thickness and jaw bone density on pain during implant surgery

doi:10.19439/j.sjos.2024.02.019

Abstract

Abstract: PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of different cortical bone thickness and jaw bone density at implant sites on intraoperative pain during implant surgery. METHODS: One hundred and eighty-seven patients(263 implant sites) who underwent implant placement surgery at the Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from August 2021 to August 2022 were selected to investigate the effects of different cortical bone thickness and jaw bone density HU values at implant sites on the anesthetic effect under local infiltration anesthesia with epinephrine in articaine. SPSS 26.0 software package was used for data analysis. RESULTS: The mean cortical bone thickness at the painful sites[(3.90±1.36) mm] was significantly greater than that at the non-painful sites [(2.24±0.66) mm], and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). The differences in cortical bone thickness in the mandibular anterior, premolar, and molar regions were statistically significant in the comparison of pain and non-pain sites. The mean HU value of bone density was (764.46±239.75) for the painful sites and (612.23±235.31) for the non-painful sites, with significant difference(P<0.05). The difference was not significant(P>0.05) when comparing the HU values of painful sites with non-painful sites in the mandibular anterior teeth and anterior molar region, while the difference was significant(P<0.05) when comparing the HU values of painful sites with non-painful sites in the mandibular molar region. CONCLUSIONS: Sites with large cortical bone thickness have a greater effect on blocking infiltrative anesthetic penetration and are more prone to intraoperative pain during implantation. In the mandibular anterior and premolar regions, the HU value of the implant sites had less effect on infiltrative anesthetic penetration, and the effect was greater in the mandibular molar region, and the implant sites with high HU values in the mandibular molar region were more likely to have intraoperative pain. When the cortical bone thickness in the planned implant site is greater than 3.9 mm and the mean bone density in the mandibular molar region is greater than 665 HU. If there is sufficient safe distance for hole operation, it is recommended to apply mandibular nerve block anesthesia combined with articaine infiltration anesthesia to avoid intraoperative pain and bad surgical experience for the patients.

Key words: Dental implant, Pain, Cortical bone thickness, Bone density

CLC Number:

R782.1

XU Ye-hao, REN Bi-hui, DAI Jie-ting, WEI Hong-wu, GUO Shui-gen, MAO Wei-hua. Effects of cortical bone thickness and jaw bone density on pain during implant surgery[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2024, 33(2): 211-218.

References

[1] Rédua RB, Carvalho FAR, Artese FRG.Measurement of the bone height of mandibular incisors and canines on computed tomography-Limitations according to bone thickness[J]. Orthod Craniofac Res, 2020, 23(1): 59-65.
[2] Jamil FA, Mohammed JA, Hasan TA, et al.The reliability of surgeons to avoid traumatic insertion of dental implants into high-risk regions: a panoramic radiograph study[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2020, 20(1): 96-102.
[3] Sonneveld KA, Mai PT, Hogge M, et al.Bifid mandibular canal: a case review and retrospective review of CBCTs[J]. Implant Dent, 2018, 27(6): 682-686.
[4] Park YT, Kim SG, Moon SY.Indirect compressive injury to the inferior alveolar nerve caused by dental implant placement[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2012, 70(4): e258-e259.
[5] Heller AA, Shankland WE, 2nd. Alternative to the inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia when placing mandibular dental implants posterior to the mental foramen[J]. J Oral Implantol, 2001, 27(3): 127-133.
[6] Snoeck M.Articaine: a review of its use for local and regional anesthesia[J]. Local Reg Anesth, 2012, 5: 23-33.
[7] Martin E, Nimmo A, Lee A, et al.Articaine in dentistry: an overview of the evidence and meta-analysis of the latest randomised controlled trials on articaine safety and efficacy compared to lidocaine for routine dental treatment[J]. BDJ Open, 2021, 7(1): 27-40.
[8] 许芸, 徐心欣, 徐文杰, 等. 口腔种植术后疼痛实时评估及影响因素分析[J]. 第三军医大学学报, 2020, 42(7): 720-724.
[9] 胡晓琳, 陈艳. 种植牙围术期疼痛评估及缓解的影响因素[J]. 临床与病理杂志, 2020, 40(8): 2124-2129.
[10] Renton T, Dawood A, Shah A, et al.Post-implant neuropathy of the trigeminal nerve. a case series[J]. Br Dent J, 2012, 212(11): E17.
[11] 王黎, 张枭, 顾迎新. 术前牙科焦虑症对口腔种植手术相关疼痛及满意度的影响[J]. 口腔颌面修复学杂志, 2021, 22(1): 16-18, 56.
[12] Merheb J, Vercruyssen M, Coucke W, et al.Relationship of implant stability and bone density derived from computerized tomography images[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2018, 20(1): 50-57.
[13] Hiasa K, Abe Y, Okazaki Y, et al.Preoperative computed tomography-derived bone densities in hounsfield units at implant sites acquired primary stability[J]. ISRN Dent, 2011: 678729.
[14] Heimes D, Schiegnitz E, Kuchen R, et al.Buccal bone thickness in anterior and posterior teeth-a systematic review[J]. Healthcare (Basel), 2021, 9(12): 1663-1695.
[15] 王梦梦. 缺牙区种植相关骨组织因素的CBCT测量与分析[D]. 石家庄: 河北医科大学, 2015.
[16] Wang YH, Wang DR, Liu JY, et al.Local anesthesia in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a review of current opinion[J]. J Dent Sci, 2021, 16(4): 1055-1065.
[17] Gazal G, Bahabri R, Alolayan AB, et al.How successful is supplemental intraseptal and buccal infiltration anaesthesia in the mandibular molars of patients undergoing root canal treatment or tooth extraction?[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Res, 2020, 11(1): e5.
[18] Meechan JG.How to overcome failed local anaesthesia[J]. Br Dent J, 1999, 186(1): 15-20.
[19] Zou R, LiL, Zhang L, et al. Combining regional and connectivity metrics of functional magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion tensor imaging for individualized prediction of pain sensitivity[J]. Front Mol Neurosci, 2022, 15: 844146.
[20] 张西磊. 疼痛敏感性:心理特质和脑结构关联[D]. 重庆: 西南大学, 2014.
[21] Haas DA.Alternative mandibular nerve block techniques: a review of the Gow-Gates and Akinosi-Vazirani closed-mouth mandibular nerve block techniques[J]. J Am Dent Assoc, 2011, 142(Suppl 3): 8s-12s.
[22] Kaufman E, Weinstein P, Milgrom P.Difficulties in achieving local anesthesia[J]. J Am Dent Assoc, 1984, 108(2): 205-208.
[23] Zhang YQ, Zhao YN, Liu DG, et al.Bifid variations of the mandibular canal: cone beam computed tomography evaluation of 1 000 Northern Chinese patients[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 2018, 126(5): e271-e278.
[24] Lew K, Townsen G.Failure to obtain adequate anaesthesia associated with a bifid mandibular canal: a case report[J]. Aust Dent J, 2006, 51(1): 86-90.
[25] Robertson D, Nusstein J, Reader A, et al.The anesthetic efficacy of articaine in buccal infiltration of mandibular posterior teeth[J]. J Am Dent Assoc, 2007, 138(8): 1104-1112.
[26] Martin M, Nusstein J, Drum M, et al.Anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL versus 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100 000 epinephrine as a primary buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar[J]. J Endod, 2011, 37(5): 588-592.
[27] El-Kholey KE.Anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine during extraction of the mandibular posterior teeth by using inferior alveolar nerve block and buccal infiltration techniques[J]. J Maxillofac Oral Surg, 2017, 16(1): 90-95.
[28] El-Kholey KE. Infiltration anesthesia for extraction of the mandibular molars[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2013, 71(10): 1658.e1-5.
[29] Meechan JG. Local anaesthesia: risks and controversies[J]. Dent Update, 2009, 36(5): 278-280, 282-283.