Radiographic modalities for diagnosis and treatment planning in implant dentistry

Early in the development of implant technology it became apparent that conventional dental imaging techniques were limited for evaluating patients for implant surgery. During the treatment planning phase, the recipient bed is routinely assessed by visual examination and palpation, as well as by periapical and panoramic radiology. These two imaging modalities provide a two-dimensional image of mesial-distal and occlusal-apical dimensions of the edentulous regions where implants might be placed. When adequate occlusal-apical bone height is available for endosteal implants, the buccal-lingual width and angulation of the available bone are the most important criteria for implant selection and success. However, neither buccal-lingual width nor angulation can be visualized on most traditional radiographs. Although clinical examination and traditional radiographs may be adequate for patients with wide residual ridges that exhibit sufficient bone crestal to the mandibular nerve and maxillary sinus, these methods do not allow for precise measurement of the buccolingual dimension of the bone or assessment of the location of unanticipated undercuts. For these concerns, it is necessary to view the recipient site in a plane perpendicular to a curved plane through the arch of the maxilla or mandible in the region of the proposed implants. Implant dentists soon recognized that, for optimum placement of implants, cross-sectional views of the maxilla and mandible were the ideal means of providing necessary pre-operative information. Today, the two most often employed and most applicable radiographic studies for implant treatment planning are the panoramic radiograph and tomography. Although distortion can be a major problem with panoramic radiographs, when performed properly they can provide valuable information, and are both readily accessible and cost efficient. To help localize potential implant sites and assist in obtaining accurate measurements, it is recommended that surgical stents be used with panoramic radiographs. In simple cases, where a limited number of implants are to be placed, panoramic radiography and/or tomography may be used to obtain a view of the arch of the jaw in the area of interest. For complex, cases, where multiple implants are required, the CT scan imaging procedure is recommended. Because of its ability to reconstruct a fully three dimensional model of the maxilla and mandible, CT provides a highly sophisticated format for precisely defining the jaw structure and locating critical anatomic structures. The use of CT scans in conjunction with software that renders immediate "treatment plans" using the most real and accurate information provides the most effective radiographic modality currently available for the evaluation of patients for oral implants. To follow patients after implant surgery, DSR can be helpful by addressing the limitations of other radiographic modalities in detecting postoperative changes. By eliminating unchanged information, DSR allows the clinician's eye to focus on actual changes that have occurred between the recordings of two images.     

Long-term follow-up on hydroxylapatite-coated cylindrical dental implants: a comparison between developmental and recent periods

PURPOSE: To compare success rates for dental implants placed from 1985 through 1988 and from 1989 through 1991, and to investigate the factors associated with success or failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All hydroxylapatite-coated cylindrical implants placed from 1985 through 1991 were followed yearly. Lifetable survival analyses compared implant success for a "developmental period" from 1985 through 1988 (4 to 8 years follow-up) and a "recent period" from 1989 through 1991 (1 to 4 years follow-up). Reasons for success or failure, time from implant placement to removal related to failure reason, outcome after implant removal, and a morbidity analysis are included. RESULTS: The 7 to 8-year cumulative success rate for all implants placed in the developmental period (maxilla and mandible combined) was 86.5%; it was 84.2% for all maxillary implants and 87.5% for all mandibular implants. The cumulative success rate for all implants placed in the recent period was 97.5%; it was 97.5% for all maxillary implants and 97.6% for all mandibular implants. The difference between the two periods was statistically significant only for the anterior maxilla. Regression analysis on the interval success rates indicates that interval failure did not follow a linear relationship with time. The most common reasons associated with failure were lack of keratinized gingiva, poor oral hygiene, mechanical overload, and malposition. CONCLUSION: Comparison with previously reported cumulative success rates indicated learning curve experiences comparable with other implant systems. Improvements in hardware, surgical and prosthetic techniques, and patient selection have led to an improvement in success rates with the recent period implants.     

Computerized cephalometric evaluation of orthognathic surgical precision and stability in relation to maxillary superior repositioning combined with mandibular advancement or setback

PURPOSE: A computerized, cephalometric, orthognathic surgical program (TIOPS) was applied in orthognathic surgical simulation, treatment planning, and postoperatively to assess precision and stability of bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty consecutive patients with dentofacial deformities requiring bimaxillary orthognathic surgery with maxillary superior repositioning combined with mandibular advancement or setback were included. All patients were managed with rigid internal fixation (RIF) of the maxilla and mandible and without maxillomandibular fixation (MMF). Preoperative cephalograms were analyzed and treatment plans produced by computerized surgical simulation. Planned, 5-week postoperative and 1-year postoperative maxillary and mandibular cephalometric-positions were compared. RESULTS: In the mandibular advancement group, the anterior maxilla was placed too far superiorly, with an inaccuracy of 0.4 mm. The posterior maxilla and the anterior mandible were placed in the planned positions. The lower posterior part of the mandibular ramus was placed too far anteriorly, with an inaccuracy of 2.0 mm. However, the mandibular condyles were accurately placed. In the setback group, the anterior maxilla was placed too far superiorly and posteriorly, with a vertical and sagittal inaccuracy of 1.0 mm and 0.7 mm, respectively. The posterior part of the maxilla was placed in a posterior position with an inaccuracy of 1.9 mm. The anterior mandible was placed too far anteriorly with an inaccuracy of 0.9 mm. The lower posterior part of the mandibular ramus was placed in a posterior position with an inaccuracy of 0.9 mm. However, the mandibular condyles were accurately placed. The statistical analysis of the 1-year stability data showed that the maxilla had moved 0.3 mm posteriorly in the advancement group and the lower incisors had moved 0.8 mm superiorly. No other significant positional maxillary or mandibular changes were found. In the setback group, the maxilla had moved 0.5 mm posteriorly, the anterior mandible 0.5 mm anteriorly, and the lower incisors 0.7 mm superiorly. No significant positional changes were seen in the mandibular ramus. CONCLUSION: The TIOPS computerized, cephalometric, orthognathic program is useful in orthognathic surgical simulation, planning, and prediction, and in postoperative evaluation of surgical precision and stability. The simulated treatment plan can be transferred to model surgery and finally to the orthognathic surgical procedures. The results show that this technique yields acceptable postoperative precision and stability.     

Implant reconstruction of the jaws and craniofacial skeleton

Full oral rehabilitation with a high degree of success is now possible with osseointegrated implants. Osseointegration is a direct connection between living bone and the titanium implant at the level of the light microscope. Osseointegrated implants are currently used to replace single teeth, support fixed bridges and stabilize full dentures. These implants can also be placed extraorally for attachment of facial prosthesis. The surgical technique used to place implants intraorally into jaws or facial skeleton is performed in two stages using a local anesthetic and/or conscious sedation. During stage I surgery, holes are placed into the jaw using a series of gradually larger diameter burs until the desired diameter and depth of the bony preparation is achieved. The implant is then placed. The implant must remain undisturbed for 4 months for osseointegration to take place. Stage II surgery is then required to remove the mucosa over the implant and place the transmucosal abutment. After 1-2 weeks of healing, the restorative dentist can take an impression and fabricate the prosthesis. On occasion, it is necessary to augment the height and width of the atrophic jaw with autogenous or allogeneic bone grafts prior to implant placement. Bone grafts are sometimes placed on the floor of the nose or the floor of the maxillary sinus. Guided tissue regeneration is a technique used to generate bone within bony defects adjacent to implants. With long-term rates of success (5 years) of 99% for implants placed in the mandible and 95% for those placed in the maxilla, reconstruction of the jaws and cranial facial skeleton with osseointegrated implants has become the treatment of choice.     

Clinical assessment of olfactory dysfunction in Parkinson''s disease

The possibility of placing endosseous implants in the edentulous maxilla is frequently reduced by inadequate bone volume of the residual ridge. In totally edentulous maxillae with knife-edge conformation, insufficient thickness is frequently associated with insufficient height of the residual ridge in the posterior maxilla because of pneumatization of the maxillary sinuses. This surgical method combines grafting of the maxillary sinuses, onlay grafts on the buccal side of maxillary posterior segments, and sagittal osteotomy of the anterior maxilla with interpositional bone grafts. Five to six months after maxillary reconstruction, Br?nemark implants were placed and, after osseointegration occurred, implant-supported dental prostheses were fabricated. Three patients have been treated with this method and 22 implants have been placed. The mean follow-up after final prosthetic rehabilitation has been 16 months; survival rate has been 100%. Despite the small number of patients and the short follow-up, preliminary results have shown very promising results.     

Reconstruction of residual alveolar cleft defects with one-stage mandibular bone grafts and osseointegrated implants

PURPOSE: This study evaluates a treatment regimen for reconstruction of residual maxillary alveolar cleft defects consisting of mandibular bone grafting and immediate implant installation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixteen cleft patients (five female and 11 male) had residual cleft defects of the alveolar ridge reconstructed with bone grafts from the mandibular symphyseal region. The bone graft was pretapped at the donor site before fixation in the residual ridge with Br?nemark implants. Twenty implants were installed according to this concept. The period of observation ranged from 36 to 69 months, with a mean of 48 months after implant installation. RESULTS: Five patients developed wound dehiscenses that resulted in total or partial bone graft sequestration. Two implants were lost, one due to sequestration and the other due to mobility at the abutment procedure; 18 implants were still well functioning at the end of the observation period. However, all patients showed significant periimplant bone resorption after this one-stage treatment. CONCLUSION: Because of the observed complication rate, the one-stage procedure may not be optimal for reconstructing residual cleft defects.     

The use of osteotomes for sinus augmentation at the time of implant placement

The placement of endosseous dental implants is often hampered by the loss of alveolar bone. In the posterior maxilla, the presence of the maxillary sinus and less-dense bone present additional obstacles to successful implant placement. Existing methods of subantral augmentation require extensive surgical manipulation, often including a second surgical site for harvesting autogenous bone. The development of surgical osteotomes has facilitated the placement of implants in areas of minimal alveolar bone height in the posterior maxilla. This article describes the osteotome technique for sinus augmentation at the time of implant placement and presents a short-term evaluation of 34 implants placed in 18 patients.     

Implant-supported prostheses for treatment of adults with cleft palate

Six adult patients with cleft palate, ranging in age from 47 to 78 years, were treated with self-tapping titanium implants. Twenty-three implants, 7 to 15 mm in length, were placed. Of these, one (4%) was 7 mm, eight (35%) were 10 mm, nine (39%) were 13 mm, and five (22%) were 15 mm. Time between stage I and stage II implant surgeries was 5 to 14 months, averaging 8.3 months. Time from stage II surgery to the present is 1.5 to 5 years, averaging 3 years. Of the 23 implants placed, 21 (91%) achieved osseointegration. One (4%) implant was not used prosthetically. Two (9%) 10 mm implants failed to integrate in one patient. All patients were treated with a maxillary complete denture or overdenture. Five (83%) required the addition of a pharyngeal section for speech enhancement.     

Clinical evaluations of a porous-surfaced endosseous implant system

Clinical evaluations of a new porous-surfaced implant concept (Endopore) in a large population of fully and partially edentulous patients are reported, and a technique of spreading buccal and lingual plates with osteotomes to place these implants in proximity to the sinus of the posterior maxilla is described. Three-dimensional, interconnecting pores on this implant's bone interface surface give a great surface area for bone engagement. When the maxilla is prepared by this spreading procedure, these implants can be successfully placed in areas having limited available bone. Our success rates are 97.0% for implants stabilizing a mandibular overdenture and 94.8% for implants placed in partially edentulous patients. Many times, sinus lift or other augmentation procedures can be avoided in the maxilla and mandible, allowing for less patient morbidity and for an implant reconstruction that is more affordable for the patient.     

Survival of cylindrical implants in composite grafted maxillary sinuses

PURPOSE: This retrospective study investigated the survival of dental implants placed in the maxilla after composite grafting of the sinus and an average of 55 months of loading. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Maxillary sinuses of 88 patients were grafted with autogenous cancellous bone combined with dense hydroxyapatite particles. After an average healing period of 3.4 months, hydroxyapatite-coated titanium endosseous implants were placed. A total of 388 implants were placed in grafted sinus floors, and 82 were placed in onlay grafted nonsinus position in the canine region. The implants were loaded with overdentures and fixed bridges 4 months (mean) after implantation, with a follow-up for a mean of 55 months. RESULTS: The cumulative implant survival was calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method. Implant survival from the time of loading was 89% in full reconstructed cases and 90% in partially edentulous cases. The overall cumulative implant survival rate, including the loss in the surgical stage, was 82%. CONCLUSION: Implant loss in composite grafted maxillae after 70 months of follow-up was similar to loss in nongrafted maxillae.     

The relationship of smoking on peri-implant tissue: a retrospective study

The term "peri-implantitis" is used to describe the formation of deep mucosal pockets around dental implants, inflammation of the peri-implant mucosa, and increased resorption of peri-implant bone. It has been speculated that when left untreated, peri-implantitis can result in implant failure. This retrospective study examines a possible correlation between smoking and the appearance of peri-implantitis. The clinical and radiographic observations of 366 implants in 107 patients who smoke were compared with those of a group of 1000 implants in 314 nonsmoking patients. Despite the retrospective nature of this study, a comparison between the two groups was possible. The mean follow-up period, mean patient age, implant locations, and percentages of fixed partial dentures and overdentures were consistent in both groups. There was no significant difference in the mean maxillary and mandibular hygienic indices between the group of smokers and that of nonsmokers. However, the group of smokers showed a higher score in the bleeding index, the mean peri-implant pocket depth, the degree of peri-implant mucosal inflammation, and radiographically discernible bone resorption mesial and distal to the implant. In the maxilla of the smoking group, these observations were significantly higher than both the mandibular observations for smokers and the maxillary observations of the group of nonsmokers (p < 0.01). No differences between the two groups were observed in the mandible. Aside from the systemic effects of tobacco smoking on the human organism, local cofactors seem to be responsible for the higher incidence of peri-implantitis in smokers and have a particularly negative effect on the maxilla. These findings confirm that smokers treated with dental implants have a greater risk of development of peri-implantitis.     

The dark side of dioxygen biochemistry

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical function and long-term prognosis of overdentures retained by a small number of implants in the maxilla and mandible using one of two different attachment systems. Included in the study were all patients referred to specialty clinics in J?nk?ping and Link?ping, Sweden, during the treatment period who needed an overdenture and could be provided with a minimum number of two bilaterally-placed implants. Excluded were patients with bone-grafted jaws, irradiated cancer patients, heavy bruxers, and patients who had lost a fixed prosthesis because of implant losses. The patients were randomly assigned to receive one retentive system, either a round 2-mm-diameter bar with clips or ball attachments (Nobel Biocare). Eighteen overdentures were placed in maxillae and 32 in mandibles, supported by a total of 115 Br?nemark implants. Of the implants placed, 86.1% were continuously osseointegrated. The cumulative implant survival rates after 7 years of loading were 75.4% in the maxillae and 100% in the mandibles. There was no difference in implant survival rate between the attachment systems. Patients with implant losses were characterized by severely resorbed maxillary ridges and inferior bone quality, together with unfavorable loading circumstances such as short implants combined with long leverages. Complications and prosthetic adjustments were mostly resolved early and easily.     

Reconstruction of an atrophic edentulous maxilla with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) using sub-antral augmentation and osseointegrated implants: case report and 3-year follow-up

With the current sophisticated, multidisciplinary approach to the treatment of cleft palate, it is anticipated that most patients with this deformity will enjoy good dental health and function. However, due to the number of older adults who were not treated with primary bone grafting and orthodontic therapy, there remains a significant number of potential candidates who may benefit from dental implants and implant-supported prostheses. Although it was not necessary in this case, a pharyngeal extension may be added to the maxillary denture to further improve speech and deglutition. This case report presents a three-year follow-up of a complex reconstruction of a highly compromised, edentulous patient. Stable fixation of the maxillary prosthesis results in a complete return to function in an individual for whom traditional dental prosthetics had resulted in ten years of failure and frustration. Combining the disciplines of reconstructive surgery and implant prosthetics enables the clinician to achieve a predictable result (Figures 12 and 13). While this case represents an extreme example, there are millions of patients for whom implant dentistry can provide life-changing benefits.     

A qualitative and quantitative method for evaluating implant success: a 5-year retrospective analysis of the Br?nemark implant

A proposed protocol and differentiated success criteria for long-term evaluation of oral implants are presented. The protocol and criteria were applied to a retrospective patient material treated during a 1-year period and followed for 5 years. The protocol comprised a two-stage analysis of the collected clinical data. First, a quantitative analysis of the outcome was made using a life table. Based on the information obtained during the follow-up, each implant was categorized into one of three groups: unaccounted for, failure, or survival. A qualitative analysis of the survival group was then performed by active testing against defined criteria. Depending on the modes of clinical and radiographic examinations and their results, surviving implants were either further assigned to one of three success grades or remained in the survival group. The data are presented in a four-field table at one level of success. Strict success criteria together with individual stability testing and radiographic examination of each consecutive implant should be used when a new implant system is evaluated or when a new application is explored. Radiography alone and more moderate success criteria may be used to document routine treatments, provided that an already well-documented implant system is studied.     

Orthognathic surgery: a hierarchy of stability

The stability and predictability of orthognathic surgical procedures varies by the direction of surgical movement, the type of fixation, and the surgical technique employed, largely in that order of importance. The most stable orthognathic procedure is superior repositioning of the maxilla, closely followed by mandibular advancement in patients in whom anterior facial height is maintained or increased. (If facial height is decreased by upward rotation of the chin, stability is compromised). The combination of moving the maxilla upward and the mandible forward is significantly more stable when rigid internal fixation is used in the mandible. Forward movement of the maxilla is reasonably stable, with or without rigid internal fixation, but mandibular setback often is not stable, and downward movement of the maxilla that creates downward rotation of the mandible is unstable. For mandibular setback, the inclination of the ramus at surgery appears to be an important influence on stability. It has been suggested that both interpositional synthetic hydroxyapatite grafting and simultaneous ramus osteotomy improve the stability of downward movement of the maxilla, but this has not been well documented. In two-jaw Class III surgery, the stability of each jaw appears to be quite similar to that of isolated maxillary advancement or mandibular setback. The least stable orthognathic procedure is transverse expansion of the maxilla. Although surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion has been suggested as a more stable alternative to segmental Le Fort I osteotomy, the patterns of movement resulting from the two procedures are different, and differences in stability have not been established.     

An evaluation of measures of synonymous codon usage bias

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether bone quality, as assessed by osteometry and histologic parameters, can be used to predict implant integration in conjunction with maxillary sinus reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Twelve patients with severely atrophied maxillary alveolar processes were treated through use of a two-stage surgical reconstructive strategy with implant placement 4 months after bone grafting. Bone biopsy specimens taken from the iliac crest peroperatively and from the sinus inlay sites 1, 2, 4, 6, or 12 months postoperatively were analyzed by light microscopy and osteomorphometry. Bone mineral content was measured by osteometry. RESULTS: Osteometric and osteomorphometric data (trabecular bone volume [%], assessment of chromatin staining, and an osteocyte index) registered for the biopsy specimens were not statistically correlated with implant failure. CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic evaluation of implant survival is difficult. The tested methods did not contribute to the improvement of guidelines for the clinical handling of these patients.     

The effect of strenuous versus moderate exercise on the metabolism of proteoglycans in articular cartilage from different weight-bearing regions of the equine third carpal bone

In the present multi-center study, non-submerged ITI implants were prospectively followed to evaluate their long-term prognosis in fully and partially edentulous patients. In a total of 1003 patients, 2359 implants were consecutively inserted. Following a healing period of 3-6 months, the successfully integrated implants were restored with 393 removable and 758 fixed restorations. Subsequently, all consecutive implants were documented annually up to 8 years. At each examination, the clinical status of all implants was evaluated according to predefined criteria of success. Therefore, the data base allowed the evaluation of 8-year cumulative survival and success rates for 2359 implants. In addition, cumulative success rates were calculated for implant subgroups divided per implant type, implant length, and implant location. Furthermore, the actual 5-year survival and success rates could be determined for 488 implants. During the healing period, 13 implants did not successfully integrate, whereas 2346 implants fulfilled the predefined criteria of success. This corresponds with an early failure rate of 0.55%. During follow-up, 19 implants were classified as failures due to several reasons. In addition, 17 implants (approximately 0.8%) demonstrated at the last annual examination a suppurative periimplant infection. Including 127 drop out implants (= 5.4% drop out rate) into the calculation, the 8-year cumulative survival and success rates resulted in 96.7% and 93.3%, respectively. The analysis of implant subgroups showed slightly more favorable cumulative success rates for screw type implants (> 95%) compared to hollow-cylinder implants (91.3%), and clearly better success rates for mandibular implants (approximately 95%) when compared to maxillary implants (approximately 87%). The actual 5-year survival and success rates of 488 implants with 98.2% and 97.3%, respectively, were slightly better than the estimated 5-year cumulative survival and success rates of 2359 implants indicating that the applied life table analysis is a reliable statistical method to evaluate the long-term prognosis of dental implants. It can be concluded that non-submerged ITI implants maintain success rates well above 90% in different clinical centers for observation periods up to 8 years.     

Increase in skeletal muscle protein content by the beta-2 selective adrenergic agonist clenbuterol exacerbates hypoalbuminemia in rats fed a low-protein diet

Between 1990 and 1995, 214 implants were placed in 29 maxillae and mandibles of 22 patients following extraction of all residual teeth as a consequence of severe periodontal disease. All patients were discharged wearing immediate dentures. The implants were analyzed with regard to the number per arch, location, length, and diameter. The 5-year cumulative survival rate was 98.5%. The mean number of implants per arch was 7.5 for the maxilla and 7.2 for the mandible. The preferred implant locations were canines, central incisors, lateral incisors, and second premolars in the maxilla; and lateral incisors, first molars, and canines in the mandible. The mean implant length was 14.7 mm in the mandible and 14.5 mm in the maxilla. The mean implant diameter was 3.8 mm in the maxilla and 3.8 mm in the mandible. The results of the present study indicate that immediate implantation for fixed full-arch reconstruction can be considered a viable treatment alternative in patients with severe periodontal disease.     

Simultaneous malaroplasty with porous polyethylene implants and orthognathic surgery for correction of malar deficiency

PURPOSE: Patients with skeletal malrelationships caused by maxillary anteroposterior defect and midface hypoplasia may present with an alteration of cheekbone contour. High osteotomies, segmental osteotomies of the zygomatic complex, and malar expansion with alloplastic materials can be performed to improve facial aesthetics. This article describes the restoration of cheekbone-nasal base-lip contour by performing a malaroplasty using an alloplastic implant in addition to orthognathic surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1995 to 1996, 17 patients with maxillomandibular malrelationships and deficient cheekbone contour were tested by malar augmentation with porous high-density polyethylene in association with maxillary advancement and mandibular setback. The diagnosis of cheekbone contour alteration was made after observing the patient from a lateral, frontal, and oblique point of view. The position of the implant was determined by using Mladick's point, with lateral or medial extension in relation to the depressed area. RESULTS: By the restoration of normal cheekbone-nasal base-upper lip contour produced excellent aesthetic results in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Malaroplasty in association with bimaxillary orthognathic surgery seems to be an effective procedure for treating midface skeletal deficiencies.     

A general dentist's guide to proper dental implant placement from an oral surgeon's perspective

This article is designed to help the general or restorative dentist more accurately predict proper implant placement by using palatal stents for the maxilla and lingual stents for the mandible, as well as parallel pin guides and vacupress stents, which help ensure both precise location and angulation. Because these stents and pin guides are easily used during surgery, the restorative dentist can prescribe with accuracy the exact position where the implants should be placed. To further the predictability of implant placement, especially in the anterior maxilla, an abutment can actually be placed into the pilot hole in the bone and checked with a vacupress stent before making the implant socket.