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.     

Improving outcomes using dental implants: integrating improvements in clinical practice

Modern restorative dentistry is confronted with many challenges related to implant use in the craniofacial region, such as attempting to place implants in esthetically critical sites or anatomically limiting regions of the jaw. To assure a successful implant placement that is satisfactory to both the patient and the dentist, four key areas need to be improved: diagnostic procedures, surgical procedures and outcomes, esthetic results, and prosthetic complications. This article discusses how an integrated approach to these areas can improve clinical practice.     

PST, the essential surgical template

The anticipated prosthesis now dictates the placement and angulation of the implant, thereby improving the function and the aesthetics of the final result. To establish a logical continuity between the surgical phases and the planned prosthesis, it is essential to use a transfer device. The restorative clinician can request a precise position and orientation of each implant with this communication tool. However, it is difficult to use a conventional surgical template following the soft tissue reflection and during preparation of implant osteotomy. The proper positioning of each implant is difficult to achieve, especially on a completely edentulous maxilla where restorations require even more ideal implant placement.     

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.     

Use of provisional restorations to enhance soft-tissue contours for implant restorations

The objective of restoring missing teeth with implant-supported restorations should not merely be achieving osseointegration with an implant and a biomechanically sound restoration. The objective must be the esthetic and functional restoration of the missing teeth. To achieve this, proper treatment planning is critical. Precise implant placement and delicate soft-tissue manipulation during surgery will allow the restorative dentist to enhance the peri-implant soft-tissue contours with the use of provisional restorations. Empirically, it seems that the earlier the provisional restoration is delivered in the treatment process the more ideal the esthetics. Several methods of using provisional restorations to enhance soft-tissue contours are presented. The concept of immediately delivering provisional restorations on placement of an implant is discussed.     

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.     

Available bone is the foremost criterion in the insertion of endosteal implants

The foremost criterion in the insertion of endosteal implants is bone availability. Implant dentists should consider first the amount of available bone of the edentulous ridge where the endosteal implant will be inserted. A common error and cause of many implant failures is the dentist's use of an implant modality which is not indicated for the density and morphology of the available bone in the edentulous ridge. Implant modality/system is not the primary criterion in the insertion of endosteal implants. Before the dentist inserts an endosteal implant, he should gauge or measure the amount of bone where the implant is intended to be placed. It should be measured in width, height, length, trajectory, and implant-crown ratio. After recording the measurements of the available bone, these should be placed in different categories to serve as guides in implant selection. If there is not enough bone for the endosteal implant, bone modification should be performed. This can be done either by osteoplasty or ridge augmentation with the use of bone grafting materials. Aside from the amount of available bone in the edentulous ridge, another very, very important thing that should be considered is the quality or its density. Any biocompatible implant demonstrates some osseointegrated surfaces depending upon the bone type into which it is placed and the loads placed upon it. Implant body must exhibit a macrogeometry suitable for acceptable levels of force transfer to the surrounding tissues as well as for implantation into a bony site of a particular anatomic size.     

Diagnosis and treatment planning for implant dentistry

Dental implants are well-established in dentistry and allow the restorative dentist to offer patients the best that dentistry has to offer. Through examination, radiographs, and study models, the restorative dentist and implant surgeon can develop a treatment plan. Comprehensive diagnosis and treatment planning involve much more than a clinical exam--they require an investigation involving past, present and future dental therapy.     

The role of the surgeon in treating multiple organ failure

The treatment of young people with implants requires advanced planning and coordination of many different specialities within dentistry. Timing and sequence of therapy will often decide the success or failure of treatment. Congenital absence of many teeth (oligodontia) associated with or without syndromes poses not only functional but also psychosocial problems for young people. A case is presented in which orthodontist, restorative dentist, and periodontist evaluated and performed the necessary therapy for a young person who at the age of 9 was diagnosed with oligodontia/l. Nine implants were placed: 13 years, 8 months in the mandible and 15 years, 6 months in the maxilla. All implants were restored as single teeth. The patient was followed until age 20.     

Occlusal considerations in the design of implant-assisted fixed prostheses

This paper introduces a classification system that enables the restorative dentist to design an appropriate occlusal scheme while restoring adult mixed dentition. The system guides the dentist in selecting an occlusal scheme based upon the number and location of osseointegrated implants and natural.     

Comparison of position repeatability of a human operator and an industrial manipulating robot

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Implant-supported restorations in the partially edentulous jaw have been performed at the Mayo Clinic for more than 10 years. Clinical performance of the implants and the prostheses should be reported to ensure effectiveness of this procedure. PURPOSE: This retrospective study described results for implant survival, implant fracture rate, prosthetic complications, and design changes that may impact these results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all registered implant patients in a large multispecialty medical center. Patients with a partially edentulous jaw who had received endosseous implants to support and retain dental prostheses were included in this review. Implant survival and fracture, prosthetic complications, and demographic data were recorded and analyzed through Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: A total of 1170 implants were placed in four anatomic locations: anterior maxilla, posterior maxilla, anterior mandible, or posterior mandible. Location of implants was shown to have no effect on implant survival (p = 0.7398), implant fracture rates (p = 0.2385), screw loosening (p = 0.8253), or screw fracture (p = 0.2737). Development of new restorative components has resulted in significantly better rates of implant survival without fracture (p = 0.0054), screw function without loosening (p < 0.0001) and screw function without fracture (p = 0.0013). Implant survival seems to have been improved with the new components (p = 0.0513). CONCLUSIONS: Implant survival in this study was independent of anatomic location of implants. Virtually all clinical performance factors were improved by design changes in implant restorative components that were brought to market in early 1991.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The role of the restorative dentist in the diagnosis and maintenance phases of implant therapy--Part III: The restoration and maintenance of oral health prior to the provision of the implant prosthesis

Establishing and maintaining the patient's oral health prior to provision of the definitive implant restoration is the responsibility of the restorative dentist and is an important aspect of comprehensive treatment. The additional time and expense required to provide oral hygiene and conventional dental treatment needs to be acknowledged by the implant team and the patient. An anticipated three to five treatment hours are often required to provide maintenance and hygiene care, with additional time needed to provide individualized conventional dental treatment to each patient. The provision of implant therapy is a rewarding experience when all aspects of treatment are properly planned and competently performed. The general practitioner is the logical resource to provide much of the necessary treatment that is directly and indirectly related to the provision of implant restorative dentistry.     

Acute respiratory distress syndrome in children

In 1991, the Dental Implant Clinical Research Group initiated a long-term clinical study in cooperation with the Department of Veterans Affairs to investigate the influence of implant design, application, and site of placement on clinical performance and crestal bone height. As part of this investigation, Periotest values for 2,212 root from implants were determined at second-stage surgery and during a 24-month follow-up period. Mean Periotest values decreased for implants placed in quality 1 and 2 bone, did not change for implants in quality 3 bone, and increased for implants in quality 4 bone. Implants in the posterior maxilla and single implants in the anterior maxilla had increasing mean Periotest values as compared with decreasing values for implants in other regions. Mean Periotest values for uncoated implants decreased gradually to approach those of hydroxyapatite-coated implants.     

Delayed implants in the anterior maxilla with the IMZ-implant system: a radiographical evaluation

One hundred and seventy-three IMZ-implants in 81 patients, placed in the anterior region of the maxilla, were evaluated radiographically by two observers. Radiographs were evaluated at three intervals, namely at the time of implant placement, the time of prosthetic restoration and at the latest available radiograph, on average 2 1/2 years after implant placement. In this study marginal bone height and the type of radiolucency adjacent to the implant were determined. Both observers were able to classify the marginal bone height (mesial and distal) and the distinctive type of resorptive defects to an acceptable level of agreement, with Cohen's kappa ranging between 0.48 and 0.69. It was found that, at the most recent visit to the clinic, angular-shaped resorptive defects are found mesially and/or distally of the implants at approximately 25% of the implants. At this stage 20.7% of the mesial implant sites and 27.9% of the distal implant sites show marginal bone heights less than three-quarters of the implant length. These findings do not fully underscore and sometimes even contradict the clinical observations which were considered highly satisfactory.     

Short-term healing following the use of calcium sulfate as a grafting material for sinus augmentation: a clinical report

Because of the frequent lack of bone in the posterior maxilla, sinus augmentation has become a commonly practiced treatment modality. Many different materials have been used for augmenting the sinus, and the ideal graft is yet to be found. The present article reports the results of sinuses grafted with calcium sulfate in 2 patients. Bone biopsies were harvested 9 months after the augmentation procedure. In the first patient, 3 titanium threaded-cylinder implants were placed in the grafted area after 9 months, while in the second, 1 acid-etched, screw-shaped titanium implant was placed simultaneously with the graft. Light microscopic evaluation revealed new bone formation with ongoing remodeling and progressive lamellar maturation in the specimens. No remnants of the alloplastic material were detectable in any section, either within the bone or in the medullary tissue. When reevaluated at the uncovering procedure, the implants were radiographically and clinically judged to be osseointegrated. These observations suggest that, when used in the appropriate form and with the proper technique, calcium sulfate is a promising graft material for sinus augmentation, producing adequate quantity and quality of new bone for implant placement.     

Prosthetic considerations in the fabrication of surgical stents for implant placement

The utilization of surgical stents/templates for implant placement is of significant importance to the success of the definitive prosthesis. However, major conceptual differences exist between surgical stents designed for implant-supported crowns and bridges and those designed for implant overdentures. In addition, various types of surgical stents exist within each group. In either case, optimizing the prosthetic result by customization of the stent should be a major consideration in the fabrication process. The design of the stent must account for several treatment conditions, including position of the implant, the tissue present, and the anticipated prosthesis. The teaching objective of this article is to present the prosthetic considerations in the fabrication and customization of surgical stents. The article compares the two groups and offers specific guidelines for the fabrication of surgical stents for the various types of restorations within each group.     

Establishing approximal contacts in Class 2 composite resin restorations

Ensuring adequate approximal contacts when performing class 2 composite resin restorations is a significant challenge for the dentist. Fabrication of custom composite cylinders for placement into prepared cavity preparations enables the dentist to wedge the matrix band firmly against adjacent teeth, as well as eliminating the curing contraction variable that occurs when composite restorations are placed. Thus, predictable approximal contacts are obtained when class 2 composite restorations are completed.