Avaliação da instalação de implantes dentários em mandíbula por meio de navegação dinâmica utilizando um novo software de tomografia computadorizada de feixe cônico

Abstract

Introduction: Contemporary dentistry has been gradually adjusting to the changing needs and technological e-Volution of this field of health, and the use of modern techniques, with more advanced appliances, is essential in treatments with dental implants in the mandible, as in the case of the use of new cone beam computed tomography software, capable of dynamically navigating. contributing to the greater success of this type of procedure. Objectives: Evaluate Jaw Dental Implant Placement Through Dynamic Navigation Using Novel Cone Beam CT Scan Software. Methods: The initial sample consisted of 2,872 cone beam computed tomography scans of patients of both sexes aged between 18 and 80 years. The criteria used to evaluate the installation of dental implants were: location of the implants in the mandible; implant length; anatomical relationship with the mandibular canal; presence or absence of damage to the teeth adjacent to the implant; presence or absence of implant fracture; presence or absence of bone support for the implant. Categorical variables were described as frequencies and percentages and evaluated using the chi-square test. The level of significance was set at p <0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 20. Results: From the initial sample of 2,872 CBCT exams, 214 images of patients of both sexes and with a mean age of 44.5 years were included in the present study. The most frequent positioning of implants was in the posterior region of the mandible (93.5%), with 54.0% having a length between 9 and 14mm. It was found that 92.0% were located above the mandibular canal, and there were no records of implants inside the mandibular canal. There was no statistically significant relationship between implant length and mandibular canal invasion (p=0.357). Three cases of damage to adjacent teeth were observed, with no correlation with implant positioning (p=0.999). No correlation was observed between age group and damage to adjacent teeth (p=0.999). In 100.0% of cases of anterior implants there was the presence of bone support, and in 91.6% of posterior implants, no statistically significant difference was observed between them (p=0.614). There was no statistically significant difference between age groups regarding the presence of bone support (p=0.254). Although fractures were observed (1.7%) in implants with lengths between 9mm and 14mm, there was no statistically significant relationship between implant length and fracture (p=0.702). Conclusion: Dynamic navigation using e-VolDX allowed us to conclude that the installation of implants in the mandible occurred more frequently in the posterior region, in the presence of bone support and with a low percentage of damage to adjacent teeth, anatomical structures and fractures