Nongrafting Implant Options for Restoration of the Edentulous Maxilla

Block, Michael S.; Haggerty, Christopher J.; Fisher, G. Rawleigh

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2008.10.008

Cited by 50 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The advantages of tilted implants are: (a) the use of longer implants, thereby increasing the contact (osseointegration) surface; (b) improved primary stability by anchoring in more than one cortical layer; (c) the avoidance of cantilever extremities by placing the implants more distal and with better load distribution over the dental arch; and (d) avoidance of the use of bone grafts and sinus lift procedures - with the resulting reduction in morbidity (1,8). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Oral rehabilitation with tilted dental implants: A metaanalysis

Ata-Ali¹,

Peñarrocha‐Oltra²,

Candel-Marti³

et al. 2012

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the course of patients treated with tilted implants versus those treated conventionally with axial implants, analyzing the success rate and marginal bone loss. Material and Methods: A PubMed search was made using the key words “tilted implants”, “angled implants”, “angulated implants”, “inclined implants” and “maxillary atrophy.” A review was made of the articles published between 1999-2010. The inclusion criteria were the use of tilted implants, clinical series involving at least 10 patients, and a minimum follow-up of 12 months after prosthetic loading. The exclusion criteria were isolated clinical cases, studies with missing data, and publications in languages other than English or Spanish. The metaanalysis finally included 13 articles: 7 retrospective studies and 6 prospective studies. Results: On analyzing the success rate in the retrospective studies, two reported a higher success rate with tilted implants; one a higher success rate with axial implants; and two reported similar success rates with both implants. On analyzing the success rate in the prospective studies, two reported a higher success rate with tilted implants; two a higher success rate with axial implants; and two reported similar success rates with both implants. On examining marginal bone loss, three studies reported greater bone loss with axial implants and one with tilted implants. Conclusions: There was no evidence of differences in success rate between tilted and axial implants in either the prospective or retrospective studies subjected to review. The marginal bone loss observed with the tilted and axial implants likewise proved very similar. It thus can be deduced that tilted implants exhibit the same evolutive behavior as axial implants. Key words:Axial implants, tilted implants, maxillary atrophy, tilted implants.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The term tilted implants refers to implants placed at an angle of normally 30 degrees or more with respect to axially or vertically positioned implants (1). According to many authors, the use of tilted implants in the posterior maxillary sector offers advantages over axial implants (2-7).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral rehabilitation with tilted dental implants: A metaanalysis

Ata-Ali¹,

Peñarrocha‐Oltra²,

Candel-Marti³

et al. 2012

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The morbidity caused by bone graft harvesting and the delay in the final treatment due to the time necessary for bone incorporation triggered the development of techniques without grafting as an option for the treatment of patients with edentulous jaws [8]. Brånemark in 1998 developed a novel technique for placing implants in the zygomatic bone to treat severely atrophic maxilla without the need for grafting, which was later modified by Stella and Warner [10].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of studies describe the occurrence of maxillary sinusitis in patients with zygomatic implants [4, 6, 8, 10–12, 15, 17, 18, 25, 26]. This finding has been attributed to perforation of the sinus membrane [17, 26], a lack of contact between the implant and the surrounding bone crest [8], the migration of bacteria from the oral cavity to the maxillary sinus due to communication between these structures [7, 17], and preexisting sinus conditions from the clinical and radiographic standpoint [4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 27]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants using sinus slot technique

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants by Stella and Warner’s technique, considering the survival rate of conventional and zygomatic implants, and assess the health of the maxillary sinuses and the level of patient satisfaction.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, 28 patients had received a combination of conventional and zygomatic implants (group I) and 14 were rehabilitated with only conventional implants (group II).ResultsThe results showed that Stella and Warner’s technique, thought to minimize the presence of the implant into the maxillary sinus, improving the emergence of the implant, proved to be effective, allowing a high survival rate of conventional and zygomatic implants (100 %). The follow-up period ranged from a minimum of 15 months to a maximum of 53 months after prosthetic rehabilitation (average of 34 months). No pathological changes were found on the periimplant tissues. Radiographs showed satisfactory bone levels in conventional implants of oral rehabilitation with zygomatic implants and a good positioning of the apex of the zygomatic implants in relation to the zygomatic bone. The tomographic findings revealed no characteristics of sinus disease. There were no cases of obstruction of the maxillary sinus ostium.ConclusionsThe placement of zygomatic implants by Stella and Warner’s technique proved to be a predictable technique with high implant survival rate in patients with atrophic maxilla and was not associated with sinus disease in the sample analyzed. However, a long-term follow-up is necessary to confirm the initial findings of this study.

show abstract

“…Al ser implantes muy largos (30 -52,5 mm) en una zona en la que existe un limitado apoyo óseo, ya que todo el soporte lo brinda el hueso malar, esto conduce a una mayor tendencia a la flexión provocada por fuerzas horizontales, el soporte es siempre en la inserción en el malar, todo esto genera momentos de flexión que se deben minimizar. Nunca pueden funcionar solos, para contrarrestar esto la primera precaución es quirúrgica añadiendo un apoyo anterior, bien sea con implantes convencionales (mínimo dos) o con otros dos implantes cigomáticos en anterior (27)(28)(29). La técnica pionera descrita y descubierta por Branemark en los 80s consistía en insertar el implante desde la cara palatina del maxilar superior reabsorbido en la región del segundo premolar, a través del seno maxilar en el tejido óseo compacto del cigomático (87) este método abrió una ventana que permitió la creación de otras técnicas que incluyen mejoras (29)(30)(31)(32)(33).…”

Section: Desarrollo Del Temaunclassified