Outcomes suggested that all the analyzed connections resulted contaminated after 5 years of functional loading. However, the connection design might influence bacterial activity levels qualitatively and quantitatively, especially inside the implant connection.
The purpose of this article is to review the literature published and to assess the success of treatment of patients with atrophic posterior maxilla with pterygoid implants. Studies from 1992 to 2009 on patients with atrophic posterior maxilla rehabilitated with pterygoid implants were reviewed. Those reporting clinical series of at least 5 patients with atrophic posterior maxilla (Class IV and V of Cawood and Howell), rehabilitated with pterygoid implants and fixed prosthesis, and with 12 months minimum follow-up were included. In each study the following were assessed: number of patients, number of implants, surgical technique, prosthetic rehabilitation, success rate, bone loss, complications and patient satisfaction. Thirteen articles were included, reporting a total of 1053 pterygoid implants in 676 patients. The weighted average success of pterygoid implants was 90.7%; bone loss evaluated radiographically ranged between 0 and 4.5 mm. No additional complications compared with conventional implants were found, and patient satisfaction level with the prosthesis was high. Pterygoid implants have high success rates, similar bone loss levels to those of conventional implants, minimal complications and good acceptance by patients, being therefore an alternative to treat patients with atrophic posterior maxilla. Two anatomical locations in which implants are placed in the retromolar area can be distinguished: the pterygoid process and the pterygomaxillary region. Implant lengths and angulations vary between these two techniques.
To assess the survival rate of implants placed in the nasopalatine canal for the rehabilitation of patients with atrophic maxillae and the level of satisfaction of these patients. A retrospective study was performed between 2000 and 2009 of patients with severe atrophy of edentulous maxillae (Cawood and Howell's class V) rehabilitated with implant-supported prostheses with 1 implant placed in the nasopalatine canal. A preoperative computed tomography scan was obtained of all patients and all surgeries were performed by the same surgeon. The following parameters were assessed: neurosensory status of the anterior palate (using the pointed/blunt discrimination method); implant success rate according to criteria described by Albrektsson et al; patient satisfaction with the prosthetic treatment (using visual analogue scales). Thirteen patients with a mean age of 54.8 years were treated, 5 men and 8 women. Seventy-eight implants were placed: 13 in the nasopalatine canal, 6 in the zygomatic bone, 12 in the pterygomaxillary region, 2 in the frontomaxillary buttress and 45 in other locations. Six patients reported a slight decrease in sensitivity in the anterior palate after surgery, which disappeared in all cases within a few weeks. Two early failures (before prosthetic loading) and no late failures (after prosthetic loading) of nasopalatine implants were recorded, yielding a success rate for these implants of 84.6% after a mean follow-up of 70 months (range 24 to 132 months. High patient satisfaction with the prosthetic restoration was generally achieved in terms of comfort, stability, function, esthetics, and ease of cleaning. Residual bone is associated with the nasopalatine canal, even in patients with severe maxillary atrophy. This canal may be considered a possible location for an anterior implant when rehabilitating atrophic patients using implant-supported prostheses.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.