Tilted versus axial implant distribution in the posterior edentulous maxilla: A CBCT analysis

被引:5
|
作者
Hamilton, Adam [1 ,2 ]
Jamjoom, Faris Z. [1 ,3 ]
Alnasser, Muhsen [1 ]
Starr, Jacqueline R. [4 ,5 ]
Friedland, Bernard [6 ]
Gallucci, German O. [7 ]
机构
[1] Harvard Sch Dent Med, Div Regenerat & Implant Sci, Dept Restorat Dent & Biomat Sci, Boston, MA USA
[2] Univ Western Australia, Div Oral Restorat & Rehabil Sci, Perth, WA, Australia
[3] King Saud Bin Abdulaziz Univ Hlth Sci, Coll Dent, Dept Restorat & Prosthet Dent Sci, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
[4] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Channing Div Network Med, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[5] Harvard Sch Dent Med, Dept Oral Hlth Policy & Epidemiol, Boston, MA USA
[6] Harvard Sch Dent Med, Dept Oral Med Infect & Immun, Boston, MA USA
[7] Harvard Sch Dent Med, Chair Dept Restorat Dent & Biomat Sci, Boston, MA USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
angled implants; dental implants; maxillary sinus; tilted implants; virtual implant planning; SHORT DENTAL IMPLANTS; ITI CONSENSUS REPORT; STRESS-DISTRIBUTION; ZYGOMATIC IMPLANTS; LONGER IMPLANTS; 6; MM; REHABILITATION; SURVIVAL; PROSTHESES; DIAMETER;
D O I
10.1111/clr.13836
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives This study aimed to determine whether distally angulating an implant is a successful strategy to avoid the maxillary sinus and the need for bone augmentation, while increasing the anterior-posterior (A-P) implant distribution in the edentulous maxilla. Materials and Methods In 115 patients with edentulous maxillae, virtual implant planning was performed utilizing cone-beam computer tomographs. Axial (8 mm length) and tilted (12 mm length) dental implants with 30-degree and 45-degree angulation were virtually positioned to avoid entering the maxillary sinus, while maximizing A-P distribution. Measurements were made between the tilted and axial implants to assess the change in A-P distribution of implants at the implant and abutment levels. Results Forty-seven sites (20.4%) were not able to have either treatment modality with insufficient bone for implant placement. Axial implants were placed more distally than 45-degree and 30-degree tilted implants in 24% and 42% of sites, respectively. The average change in A-P spread measured at the implant level, for 30- and 45-degree tilted implants was -0.25 mm (95% CI -0.76, 0.26) and 1.9 mm (95% CI 1.4, 2.3), respectively. When measured from the center of each multi-unit abutment the average increase in A-P distances for tilted implants appears larger in the 30-degree and 45-degree groups by 0.97 mm and 1.74 mm, respectively compared to measurements at the implant level. Conclusions Angulating 12 mm implants provides a limited increase in A-P distribution of implants in edentulous rehabilitation in most situations. In certain patients, the use of 8mm axial implants may provide a greater A-P spread.
引用
收藏
页码:1357 / 1365
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Tilted or Parallel Implant Placement in the Completely Edentulous Mandible? A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis
    Naini, Roshanak Baghai
    Nokar, Saied
    Borghei, Hasti
    Alikhasi, Marzieh
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2011, 26 (04) : 776 - 781
  • [22] The ability to screw-retain single implant-supported restorations in the anterior maxilla: A CBCT analysis
    Edmondson, Erin K.
    Trejo, Pedro M.
    Soldatos, Nikolaos
    Weltman, Robin L.
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2022, 128 (03): : 443 - 449
  • [23] Tilted Implants and Sinus Floor Elevation Techniques Compared in Posterior Edentulous Maxilla: A Retrospective Clinical Study over Four Years of Follow-Up
    Felice, Gherlone Enrico
    Bianca, D'Orto
    Matteo, Nagni
    Paolo, Cappare
    Vinci, Raffaele
    APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL, 2022, 12 (13):
  • [24] Finite element analysis of implant-supported prosthesis with pontic and cantilever in the posterior maxilla
    de Souza Batista, Victor Eduardo
    Verri, Fellippo Ramos
    de Faria Almeida, Daniel Augusto
    Santiago Junior, Joel Ferreira
    Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo
    Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza
    COMPUTER METHODS IN BIOMECHANICS AND BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, 2017, 20 (06) : 663 - 670
  • [25] Analysis of implant-failure predictors in the posterior maxilla: A retrospective study of 1395 implants
    Pabst, Andreas Max
    Walter, Christian
    Ehbauer, Sebastian
    Zwiener, Isabella
    Ziebart, Thomas
    Al-Nawas, Bilal
    Klein, Marcus Oliver
    JOURNAL OF CRANIO-MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2015, 43 (03) : 414 - 420
  • [26] Implant stability in posterior maxilla: bone-condensing versus bone-drilling: a clinical study
    Markovic, Aleksa
    Calasan, Dejan
    Colic, Snjezana
    Stojcev-Stajcic, Ljiljana
    Janjic, Bojan
    Misic, Tijana
    ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTOLOGY, 2011, 112 (05): : 557 - 563
  • [27] Implants in the Posterior Maxilla: Open Sinus Lift Versus Conventional Implant Placement. A Systems is Review
    Romero-Milian, Javier
    Aizcorbe-Vicente, Javier
    Penarrocha-Diago, Maria
    Galindo-Moreno, Pablo
    Canullo, Luigi
    Penarrocha-Oltra, David
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2019, 34 (04) : E65 - E76
  • [28] Treatment plan for restoring the edentulous maxilla with implant-supported restorations: Removable overdenture versus fixed partial denture design
    Zitzmann, NU
    Marinello, CP
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 1999, 82 (02): : 188 - 196
  • [29] Ridge dimensions of the edentulous posterior maxilla: a retrospective analysis of a cohort of 127 patients using computerized tomography data
    Pramstraller, Mattia
    Farina, Roberto
    Franceschetti, Giovanni
    Pramstraller, Christof
    Trombelli, Leonardo
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2011, 22 (01) : 54 - 61
  • [30] Resonance frequency analysis of long-term implant success in the posterior partially edentulous mandible
    Yamaguchi, Masahiko
    Xu, Hui
    Shimizu, Yoshinaka
    Hatano, Naoki
    Ooya, Kiyoshi
    QUINTESSENCE INTERNATIONAL, 2008, 39 (03): : E121 - E125