4.5 Article

Neurophysiological changes associated with implant placement

Journal

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH
Volume 28, Issue 5, Pages 576-581

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12837

Keywords

implant placement; inferior alveolar nerve injury; neuropathic pain; neurophysiological changes; quantitative sensory testing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectivesThe objective of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of a standardized Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) protocol extra- and intraoral in patients to detect and quantify sensory disturbances of the inferior alveolar nerve due to the proximity of implantation procedures to the inferior alveolar nerve canal. Material and MethodsPatients who had obtained an implant placement were examined by implementing a comprehensive QST protocol for extra- and intraoral use. The study included 33 patients after implant placement in the lower jaw and one patient suffering from an inferior alveolar nerve injury. Patients were tested bilaterally (chin and mucosal lower lip). ResultsComparing the implanted vs. the control side, QST parameters revealed no significant neurophysiological changes in all parameters. Evaluating the development of sensory disturbances in dependency of the proximity of the implant to the inferior alveolar nerve canal, mechanical QST parameters showed no significant correlation. The mean distance of the inserted implant to the inferior nerve canal was 2.651.75mm. In the case of one patient suffering from impairment of the nerve function due to implant placement, we found abnormal sensory responses to touch coexisting with numbness and temperature algesia. ConclusionsMonitoring of trigeminal nerve fiber functions by QST intra- and extraoral is feasible to evaluate oral sensory pattern after implantation procedures. Sensory disturbances of the inferior alveolar nerve were shown to be avoided by keeping an average safety zone of 2.65mm between implant and nerve.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available