Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
PERIODONTOLOGY 2000
Nowadays, oral implants are routinely used for rehabilitation of the edentulous jaw bone. In recent years,
the surgical procedure has been endorsed as uncomplicated and therefore often labelled as implant placement rather than as true jaw-bone surgery.
Nevertheless, the potential risk of neurovascular complications should always be taken into account, even
in the symphyseal area, which has traditionally been
promoted as a safe surgical area. With the steep rise of
implant placement in oral health care, the number of
reports on neurovascular complications has also been
steadily increasing, with most complications occurring in the mandible. Indeed, when analyzing data on
neural injuries, it seems that the incidence of lingual
nerve injury (mostly related to wisdom tooth surgery)
has remained static over the last 30 years, whilst the
incidence of inferior alveolar nerve injury has steadily
increased (88). Those injuries are resulting in an
increasing number of medico-legal claims (61).
In a retrospective study of patient complaints for
transient and permanent neurosensory disturbances
of the inferior alveolar nerve, one insurance company
classied 382 claims in a decade, one in ve (n = 75) of
which were related to permanent injuries (61). Thirdmolar removals were responsible for 47% of the cases
experiencing permanent loss of sensation. Endodontic treatments, with their traumatic and chemical
effects, also seem to be responsible for causing an
increasing number of nerve injuries, accounting for
35% of the complaints, with one-fth of these being
permanent sensory deciencies. Overall, implants
account for only 3% of all reported cases of neurosensory disturbances (61). However, it is striking that
when the distribution is recalculated for permanent
neurosensory disturbances, implant placement seems
to be responsible for 12% of such injuries (61). This
implies that 75% of all neurosensory disturbances following implant placement are of a permanent nature.
Libersa and coworkers (61) estimated, in a 10-year follow-up period, that 0.2% of practitioners may cause a
188
assessment including cone beam computed tomography. To reduce the peroperative risks, it is therefore obvious that oral implant placement should
always be preceded by careful preoperative radiographic planning, paying attention not only to jawbone volume and morphology, the mandibular
canal and the maxillary sinus, but also to all other
neurovascular structures and their potential variations (34). The preoperative radiographic planning
phase should evidently start with a preplanning
diagnostic phase, considering intraoral radiography
and/or panoramic radiography, depending on the
extent of the edentulous areas. If it turns out that
implants are needed in areas with a potential risk of
damage to vital structures, a safety margin of 2 mm
away from the neurovascular canal should be
respected (109) to avoid (in)direct trauma. But, even
then, some case reports mention postoperative neurovascular complaints (24, 91). If it turns out that
spatial information is essential to prepare the surgical implant placement, one may opt for addition of
a third dimension. More provocative, but probably
also more effective and even conditionally dosefriendly, the following reasoning could be made:
when the consulting patient expresses an obvious
need for implants, with the clinical examination
revealing not only one or more edentulous areas
but also showing severe periodontal breakdown
with the presence of crown and bridges weakening
the roots, it could be hypothesized for the initial
examination to be a three-dimensional low-dose
cone beam computed tomography scan, meanwhile
skipping all other two-dimensional diagnostic imaging steps and their related radiation dose (36). The
latter would then enable the clinician to maximize
the use of the inherent three-dimensional data
deriving from the cone beam computed tomography. This single data set could generate all necessary reformats, and even provide a diagnostically
useful cone beam computed tomography-derived
individualized reconstructed panoramic reslice
image (84). Although a panoramic radiograph is
often advocated for initial treatment planning, the
present proposal would hypothesize skipping the
initial panoramic radiograph in cases where threedimensional imaging is clinically justied. Should
the clinician still feel the need for a panoramic
overview image, additional exposure can be avoided
by using the existing three-dimensional data sets to
create a panoramic reslice. This could subsequently
be used as an orientational reference to indicate
where to place the implants and where to inspect
the remaining teeth. The use of the three-dimen-
189
Jacobs et al.
190
Hypesthesia, anesthesia and paresthesia may manifest as a sensory disturbance. In some patients, it is
mainly the sense of pain that is disturbed but, in
others, the tactile and temperature senses are also
affected (1, 59). All of these changes can be transient
or persistent, depending on the degree of damage to
the nerve tissue involved.
Case reports on postimplant injury causing neuropathic pain seem to be related more often to ischemia of the mandibular nerve caused by hemorrhage
into the canal, than by direct mechanical trauma
caused by the implant itself (46). Cracking the mandibular canal roof while preparing the implant bed
may indeed result in hemorrhage into the canal or
the deposition of debris, which may compress the
neurovascular bundle, resulting in nerve ischemia.
This constrictive effect on the nerve may persist if
the implant is left in situ, even if the implant is
backed-up or replaced with a shorter implant.
Intra-operative risk factors may also include a sudden give or a reported electric shock-type feeling
during preparation. Furthermore, if extensive bleeding (e.g. from the inferior alveolar artery) is present,
it is occasionally advisable to delay implant placement for a few days, also to ensure that no nerve
damage has occurred.
Extensive hemorrhage in the oor of the mouth
may occur during or after implant placement in the
mental interforaminal region (10, 14, 18, 19, 23, 29,
39, 42, 48, 49, 67, 69, 74, 79, 81, 83, 102). This may
even result in a life-threatening acute airway
obstruction (14, 23, 48, 49, 67, 69, 79). The hemorrhage may be caused by instrumentation, through
perforation of the lingual cortical plate, and also by
touching and damaging the neurovascular bony
canals, such as lingual canals. Vascular supplies
from the lingual artery, sublingual artery and submental artery anostomose through superior, inferior
and lateral foramina. These multiple vascular anastomoses may lead to profuse bleeding, even from a
broken small-size bony canal. Importantly, the vascular size and neurovascular canal diameter have
been identied as being large enough to cause signicant damage and bleeding when touched (29,
31, 5658, 103, 114).
In the maxilla, visualization of pertinent anatomic
structures, such as the nasoplatine canal, nasal fossa or maxillary sinus, has received less attention in
the literature (9, 68, 76). Although the presence of
these structures may impede implant success, it is
unclear whether (intentional) violation of these
structures result in neurosensory side effects (31,
77).
canal was not statistically signicantly related to gender or side of the mandible. The authors conclude
that clinicans should preserve this anatomic variation
when performing surgery in the retromolar area.
Another vital structure, more anteriorly located, is
denitely the mental foramen (8, 17, 77, 97). While
the mandibular nerve runs forward through the mandibular canal, at the level of the mental foramen, it is
branching into the incisive nerve and mental nerve.
The latter is typically single in nature. Additional
mental foramina exist, with a reported prevalence of
9% (Fig. 2). These foramina are often smaller and are
located more posteriorly (17). Some of those foramina
are rather accessory in nature and are therefore
termed accessory mental foramina, yet others do
exhibit the same size and functional importance and
are thus denoted as double foramina. The absence
of mental foramina has occasionally been described.
Variations in the position of the mental foramen are
also common. Typically, the foramen is located halfway between the alveolar crest and the lower border
of the mandible, between the rst and the second
premolars. However, it may be found as far anterior
as the canine, or as far posterior as the rst molar
(see Fig 2B), sporadically even as far as the second
molar. The latter denitely holds true for the double
foramina. When extending anteriorly, the mental
nerve may make a U-turn. In the literature, this is
denoted as anterior looping or an anterior loop and
may occur in no less than 10% of cases (16, 17, 77,
92). The average length of such an anterior loop of
the mental nerve ranges from 3 to 7 mm. Postsurgical
complications may occur when this loop is not identied (59, 87, 88). This type of iatrogenic injury to the
mental nerve or its anterior looping during surgery
may lead to permanent neurosensory damage or to
disturbed sensory feeling and/or pain (21, 25, 28, 59,
87, 88, 97) (Figs 3 and 4).
While mostly considering the anterior parts of jaws
as safe for oral surgery, the use of volumetric imaging
has allowed visualization of an elaborate neurovascularization with many variations (31). Apart from the
mental nerve, the incisive nerve is often identied as
a second terminal branch of the inferior alveolar
nerve, which has an intra-osseous course in a socalled mandibular incisive canal (3133, 65, 66). This
canal is located anteriorly to the mental foramen
from both left and right sides of the mandible. This
canal is often neglected, probably because of the
aforementioned ignorance of such structures in
anatomy textbooks (2, 52, 62, 63, 71, 73). Only Grays
Anatomy mentions that the mandibular canal gives
off two small canals mental and incisive; the mental
191
Jacobs et al.
A
192
193
Jacobs et al.
A
194
Neurosensory disturbances
reported
As stated earlier, the incidence of neuropathic orofacial pain following implant placement largely varies
for both transient (024%) and permanent (011%)
nerve injuries (3, 61, 80, 85, 87, 88). When studying
claims for neurosensory disturbances of the inferior
alveolar nerve, implant placement was found to
account for only 3% of all reported cases but was
195
Jacobs et al.
A
196
and showed only two cases of postoperative paresthesia, representing 0.08% of implants inserted in the
posterior segment of the mandible, or 0.13% of
patients. In this study, sensory disturbances were
minor, lasted for 36 weeks and resolved spontaneously. However, it is important to realize that
implants were inserted with a safety zone of at least
2 mm in relation to the mandibular canal. Renton
et al. (87, 88) reviewed cases of implant-related nerve
injuries. The most important cause of injury was
proximity of the implant (bed) to the inferior alveolar
canal, with one-fth of the cases of injury caused by
entry into the canal, one-fth caused by crossing the
canal and almost half caused by contacting the roof
of the canal. In one patient only, the injury was presumed to result from a local anesthetic trauma. Many
other case reports describe neurosensory disturbances of the inferior alveolar nerve, not only in the
posterior mandible but also in the symphyseal area
(1, 4, 7, 21, 43, 53, 61, 72, 82, 87, 88, 115, 119). Based
on the analysis of questionnaires, Ellies and Hawker
(21) showed that 37% of their subjects had an altered
sensation after implantation, with 1015% still noting
such changes after 15 months. By using a combination of psychophysical methods, Bartling and colleagues could identify eight out of 94 subjects having
an altered sensation after mandibular implant placement (7). Wismeijer et al. (119) described an altered
sensation in 11% of their subjects 10 days after
implant surgery, with 10% still reporting this sensation 6 months later. On the other hand, Abarca and
colleagues (1) evaluated neurosensory disturbances
associated with immediately loaded implants in the
edentulous anterior mandible. One-third of their
subjects reported a neurosensory disturbance after
surgery, and 15% still complained of neurosensory
disturbance 821 months afterwards (1).
Intra-oral hemorrhage
Signicant hemorrhages are mostly described after
anterior mandibular implant placement or in sinus
augmentation before or during implant placement.
For mandibular implant placement, a review of the
literature shows at least 19 case reports related to
hemorrhage in the oor of the mouth (10, 14, 18, 19,
23, 29, 38, 39, 42, 48, 49, 67, 69, 74, 79, 81, 83, 102, 116)
and potentially life-threatening upper airway obstruction (14, 23, 48, 49, 67, 69, 79). Those hemorrhages
were mostly related to lingual perforations, long
implants (15 mm) or deep osteotomy preparations.
Most cases were handled adequately by controlling
197
Jacobs et al.
Concluding remarks
It is clear that oral implant placement, although a relatively common procedure, is not without risks.
Although nerve disturbance after implant placement
is rare, case reports show that if it occurs it can
result in life-disordering complications. Hemorrhage
can lead to a life-threatening complication of implant
198
placement, especially in the mandibular interforaminal region. In this respect, anterior mandibular surgery should be reclassied, in view of the risks for
neurovascular disturbance, rather than denoting it as
an easy and/or safe surgical area. From the abovementioned accumulated evidence, it can be stated
that in addition to careful clinical examination, meticulous presurgical imaging is a prerequisite to avoid
surgical complaints. The signicant variability in neurovascularization of the human jaw and the occurrence of unfavorable bone morphology, underline the
importance of three-dimensional imaging for virtual
surgery planning to provide a realistic depiction of
the neurovascular structures. In this context, the
introduction of dentomaxillofacial cone beam computed tomography, offering three-dimensional digital
imaging at low radiation dose and relatively low costs,
has increased the applicability and strengthened the
justication for cross-sectional presurgical imaging.
References
1. Abarca M, van Steenberghe D, Malevez C, De Ridder J,
Jacobs R. Neurosensory disturbances after immediate
loading of implants in the anterior mandible: an initial
questionnaire approach followed by a psychophysical
assessment. Clin Oral Investig 2006: 10: 269277.
2. Agur AMR, editor. Grants atlas of anatomy, 9th ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1991: 501.
3. Al-Khabbaz AK, Grifn TJ, Al-Shammari KF. Assessment of
pain associated with the surgical placement of dental
implants. J Periodontol 2007: 78: 239246.
4. Al-Ouf K, Salti L. Postinsertion pain in region of mandibular dental implants: a case report. Implant Dent 2011: 20:
2731.
5. Al-Rawi B, Hassan B, Vandenberge B, Jacobs R. Accuracy
assessment of three-dimensional surface reconstructions
of teeth from cone beam computed tomography scans.
J Oral Rehabil 2010: 37: 352358.
6. Bailey PH, Bays RA. Evaluation of long-term sensory
changes following mandibular augmentation procedures.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1984: 42: 722727.
7. Bartling R, Freeman K, Kraut RA. The incidence of altered
sensation of the mental nerve after mandibular implant
placement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999: 57: 14081412.
8. Bavitz JB, Harn SD, Hansen CA, Lang M. An anatomical
study of mental neurovascular bundle-implant relationships. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993: 8: 563567.
9. Bornstein MM, Balsiger R, Sendi P, von Arx T. Morphology
of the nasopalatine canal and dental implant surgery: a
radiographic analysis of 100 consecutive patients using
limited cone-beam computed tomography. Clin Oral
Implants Res 2011: 22: 295301.
10. Boys-Varley JG, Lownie JF. Haematoma of the oor of the
mouth following implant placement. SADJ 2002: 57: 6465.
11. Carter L, Farman AG, Geist J, Scarfe WC, Angelopoulos C,
Nair MK, Hildebolt CF, Tyndall D, Shrout M; American
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
199
Jacobs et al.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
200
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
201
Jacobs et al.
110. Vickers ER, Cousins MJ, Walker S, Chisholm K. Analysis
of 50 patients with atypical odontalgia. A preliminary
report on pharmacological procedures for diagnosis and
treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998: 85: 2432.
111. von Arx T, Bornstein MM, Werder P, Bosshardt D. The retromolar canal (foramen retromolare). Overview and case
report. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 2011: 21: 821834.
112. von Arx T, Bornstein MM. The patent nasopalatine duct.
A rare anomaly and diagnostic pitfall. Schweiz Monatsschr
Zahnmed 2009: 119: 379389.
nni A, Sendi P, Buser D, Bornstein
113. von Arx T, von Arx T, Ha
MM. Radiographic study of the mandibular retromolar
canal: an anatomic structure with clinical importance.
J Endod 2001: 37: 16301635.
114. von Arx T, Matter D, Buser D, Bornstein MM. Evaluation
of location and dimensions of lingual foramina using limited cone-beam computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac
Surg 2011: 69: 27772785.
115. Walton JN. Altered sensation associated with implants in
the anterior mandible: a prospective study. J Prosthet Dent
2000: 83: 443449.
202