Implant rehabilitation of the edentulous jaws: Does tilting of posterior implants at an angle greater than 45° affect bone resorption and implant success?: A retrospective study

Abstract

Posterior implants tilted >45° to eliminate distal cantilever may be as safe as those tilted less in severely atrophic jaws rehabilitated with immediately loaded, full-arch prostheses supported on 4 implants. Further prospective studies on larger samples of patients and implants and with longer follow-up are needed to confirm these findings.

Effect of supporting implants inclination on stability of fixed partial denture: A finite element study

“…In this study, the model of FPD supported by two tilted dental implants provides a new design with a reduced risk of bone loss and implants failure by reducing stress concentrations rate. Moreover, The FE results are qualitatively in agreement with those obtained by previous studies 4,8,13,17,22,23,[35][36][37][38][39][40] although the geometrical models and loading condition that were used are different from those used in our study.…”

“…Also, no evidence suggested that tilted implants are associated with a higher incidence of biomechanics complications. 35 Moreover, Malchiodi et al, 36 in a retrospective study on 142 implants inserted in the maxilla and mandible, using an All-on-Four approach, with immediate loading noticed that implant tilting angle was not correlate with marginal bone loss and concluded that implants tilted . 45°to eliminate distal cantilever were as safe as those tilted less in severely atrophic jaws rehabilitated with immediately loaded, full-arch prostheses supported on four implants.…”

“…Several past studies have been aimed at determining the optimum geometry of implant-supported FPDs. 4,8,13,36 However, the role of tilted supporting implants has not been researched adequately and should therefore be investigated and a solution must be sought to minimize undesirable stresses.…”

Eight to eleven‐year follow‐up of immediately loaded implants placed in edentulous maxillae with compromised bone volume and poor bone quality: A prospective cohort study

“…Strategies to avoid bone augmentation include adjusting the implant diameter to the volume of the remaining bone by using narrow or short implants, 7,8 receiving anchorage from the zygomatic bone by usage of zygoma implants, 9 or modifying the implant placement in the available maxillary bone by angulating the implants to achieve maximal bone anchorage. 10,11 Additional advantage of avoiding bone augmentation is that patients can be potentially provided prosthesis within 24 hours of implant placement. This concept known as immediate implant loading (defined as prosthesis loaded onto the dental implant within 1 week of implant placement) is being increasingly documented.…”

“…Hence clinical implant treatment procedures that avoid bone augmentation are being increasingly sought after. Strategies to avoid bone augmentation include adjusting the implant diameter to the volume of the remaining bone by using narrow or short implants, receiving anchorage from the zygomatic bone by usage of zygoma implants, or modifying the implant placement in the available maxillary bone by angulating the implants to achieve maximal bone anchorage …”