New Safety Margins for Chin Bone Harvesting Based on the Course Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Bernhard Pommer New safety margins for chin bone Gabor Tepper Andre´ Gahleitner harvesting based on the course of the Werner Zechner mandibular incisive canal in CT Georg Watzek Authors’ affiliations: Key words: augmentation, donor site morbidity, graft technique, mandibular nerve, Bernhard Pommer, Gabor Tepper, Andre´ symphysis Gahleitner, Werner Zechner, Georg Watzek, Department of Oral Surgery, Bernhard Gottlieb School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Abstract Vienna, Austria Objectives: Altered pulp sensitivity of anterior lower teeth is a frequent finding following Andre´ Gahleitner, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Division of Osteoradiology, General chin bone harvesting. Persistent loss of tooth sensitivity has been reported in up to 20% of Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, the patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate current recommendations for the Austria location of the harvest zone with respect to the course of the mandibular incisive canal Correspondence to: (MIC), the intrabony continuation of the mandibular canal mesial to the mental foramen. Dr Bernhard Pommer Department of Oral Surgery Material and methods: On computed tomographic (CT) scans of 50 dentate mandibles, the Bernhard Gottlieb School of Dentistry MIC was located and its distance to the root apices, to the labial bony surface, and to the Medical University of Vienna inferior margin of the mandible was assessed. The risk of nerve injury and the percentage of Waehringer Strasse 25a A-1090 patients suitable for chin bone grafting were calculated. Vienna Results: Respecting current recommendations for chin bone grafting, the content of the Austria Tel.: þ 43 1 4277 67011 MIC was endangered in 57% of the CTs. Therefore, new safety margins are suggested: the Fax: þ 43 1 4277 67019 chin bone should be harvested at least 8 mm below the tooth apices with a maximum e-mail: [email protected] harvest depth of 4 mm. Conclusions: Applying the new safety recommendations and proper patient selection in chin bone harvesting could reduce the risk of altered postoperative tooth sensitivity due to injury of the mandibular incisive nerve. Bone grafting procedures have become ductive, and nonimmunogenic properties standard care in patients with insufficient (Nkenke et al. 2002). Autotransplant bone bone volumes at potential implant recipi- grafts still provide the most rapid and pre- ent sites (Von Arx et al. 2005). Osseous dictable results in terms of resultant bone ridge deficiencies require restoration before quality and quantity (Raghoebar et al. implant surgery to enable reliable and es- 2001). A variety of extra- and intraoral thetic implant placement (Widmark et al. donor sites are available to the surgeon 1997). The need to repair dentoalveolar including the iliac crest, tibia, ribs, calvar- atrophy and bone defects has resulted in ium, zygoma, maxilla, and mandible the use of various techniques and sources of (Misch et al. 1992). The obvious advan- Date: graft material. Despite recent advances in tages of bone grafts from intraoral sites are Accepted 26 February 2008 bone-substitute technology, the use of convenient surgical access, avoidance of To cite this article: autogenous bone grafts continues to repre- cutaneous scarring, reduced operation Pommer B, Tepper G, Gahleitner A, Zechner W, Watzek G. New safety margins for chin bone harvesting based on sent the ‘gold standard’ in reconstructive time, use of local anesthesia on an out- the course of the mandibular incisive canal in CT. surgery of the oral and maxillofacial region patient basis, and therefore lower costs. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 19, 2008; 1312–1316 doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01590.x because of their osteoinductive, osteocon- Furthermore, intraoral bone grafts are 1312 c 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation c 2008 Blackwell Munksgaard Pommer et al . New safety margins for chin bone harvesting favored because of the identical embryonic Jovanovic 1999). However, these safety deep) with the MIC were assessed, and the origin of donor and receptor sites, as ecto- recommendations are not based on knowl- percentage of patients carrying the risk of mesenchymal bone exhibits less resorption edge of the position and course of the nerve injury by these osteotomies was due to faster revascularization compared MIC. The aim of the present investigation calculated. The same risk estimation was with bone of mesenchymal origin (Koole was to evaluate the current safety recom- performed for harvesting bone at a distance 1994). mendations with the help of computed of 1–10 mm from the apices of the teeth. The mandibular symphysis is a very tomography (CT) and, from these results, Combining the two factors ‘depth of bone common intraoral donor site for autoge- derive strategies to prevent postoperative graft’ and ‘distance to the apices,’ the risk nous bone grafts and has been used success- sensitivity impairment in patients sub- of injuring the MIC in the generally recom- fully in a variety of clinical applications jected to chin bone harvesting. mended harvest zone (5 mm anterior to the (Raghoebar et al. 2001). The chin graft mental foramen, 5 mm below the tooth provides both cortical and medullary bone apices, and 5 mm above the lower border necessary for osteoinduction and osteocon- Material and methods of the mandible) was computed. Various duction (Cranin et al. 2001). The mandib- settings of these two factors were likewise ular interforaminal region is generally tested to identify the configuration Routine CT scans of 50 dentate mandibles considered a safe surgical area, involving featuring the minimal risk of nerve injury. were acquired with a conventional CT few risks of damage to vital anatomic Each setting was analyzed for sufficient scanner (Tomoscan SR-6000, Philips, structures. However, the anterior mandible symphyseal bone height for harvesting Eindhoven, the Netherlands) using a stan- contains intrabony vascular canals (Gah- bone blocks with a diameter of either 6, dard dental CT investigation protocol leitner et al. 2001; Tepper et al. 2001) as 8, or 10 mm. (1.5 mm slice thickness, 1.0 mm table well as the mandibular incisive canal feed, 120 kV, 75 mA, 2 s scan time, 100– (MIC), the intrabony continuation of the 120 mm field of view, high-resolution bone mandibular canal mesial to the mental filter). The age of the patients (18 men and Results foramen (Mardinger et al. 2000). This little 32 women) ranged between 25 and 71 noticed anatomic structure carries a major years, with a mean age of 47.2 years. The mean distance (Æ standard deviation) neurovascular bundle, the mandibular in- Exclusion criteria involved poor visibility of the MIC to the apices of the first pre- cisive nerve, and accompanying vessels, for of the MIC in CTand partial edentulism or molar, the canine, the lateral, and middle innervation and vascular supply of the pathologic findings in the interforaminal incisor amounted to 5.6 Æ 2.4, 5.2 Æ 2.4, lower anterior dentition, i.e. incisors, ca- region. Orthoradial images were refor- 6.6 Æ 2.4, and 5.3 Æ 2.2 mm, respec- nine, and first premolar (De Andrade et al. matted from the axial slices bilaterally at tively. The mean distances of the MIC to 2001). Therefore, the position of the MIC the position of the middle and lateral the labial bony surface of the mandible at has to be kept in mind during chin bone incisor, the canine, and the first premolar. these positions were 3.4 Æ 1.1, 4.2 Æ 1.5, harvesting procedures (Obradovic et al. 1993). On these reformatted images, the MIC was 4.2 Æ 1.5, and 4.4 Æ 1.4 mm, respec- Even though the mandibular symphysis located and the following distances were tively. The distance of the MIC to the is considered to have an excellent risk– assessed: (a) distance from the MIC to the lower margin of the symphysis averaged benefit ratio, frequent complications have tooth apex, (b) distance from the MIC to 10.7 Æ 1.9, 10.3 Æ 2.2, 11.1 Æ 2.5, and been described following chin bone har- the labial bony surface, and (c) distance 14 Æ 2.8 mm, respectively. No statisti- vesting (Hoppenreijs et al. 1992; Nkenke from the MIC to the lower margin of the cally significant difference between the et al. 2001). Donor site morbidity involves symphysis (Fig. 1). Measurements were left and the right patient side was observed intraopertive bleeding, wound dehiscence, performed by two independent observers (P40.05). mental nerve injury, pulp canal oblitera- (B. P. and G. T.) using the Easy Vision Table 2 demonstrates the positive corre- tion, as well as loss of pulp sensitivity of Workstation (Philips) with a technical ac- lation between the depth of the bone graft the anterior lower teeth, the latter repre- curacy of 0.1 mm and a maximum inter- and the risk of nerve injury, and the nega- senting neuropraxia of the mandibular in- observer variability of 0.5 mm. tive correlation between the distance to the cisive nerve (Raghoebar et al. 2001). Utilizing these data, possible interfer- root apices and the risk of nerve injury. Review of the literature shows that nega- ences of imaginary osteotomies (1–10 mm Table 3 shows that application of the current tive pulp sensitivity has been reported postoperatively in up to 80% of patients after chin bone harvesting. Up to 20% of Table 1. Prospective studies reporting postoperative and persistent loss of sensitivity in patients demonstrated persistent loss of the anterior lower teeth (percentage per patient) after chin bone harvesting tooth sensitivity (Table 1). These neurosen- Publication Sample size Postoperative (%) Persistent (%) sory disturbances occurred while respecting Chiapasco et al. (1999) 15 80 13.3 the generally recommended safety margins Do¨ rtbudak et al. (2002) 31 32.3 6.5 defining the harvest zone as being 5 mm Joshi (2004) 27 18.5 7.4 anterior to the mental foramen, 5 mm Misch (1997) 31 29 0 Nkenke et al.