Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2004
A preliminary morphologic classification of the alveolar ridge after distraction osteogenesis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
García García Abel, Somoza Martin Manuel, Gandara Vila Pilar, Gandara Rey Jose Manuel
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We sought to develop and evaluate a preliminary morphologic classification of the alveolar ridge after distraction osteogenesis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve patients (7 women and 5 men; mean age, 42.6 years; age range, 30 to 57 years) underwent a total of 17 alveolar ridge distractions before the placement of a total of 44 dental implants. Ridge bone morphology was evaluated and categorized at implant placement, with subsequent evaluation of the frequency and type of complications in each category.
RESULTS: Four morphologic categories were identified, as follows. Category I consisted of wide alveolar rim and no bone defects; 7 (41.2%) of the 17 ridges were assigned to this category, and a total of 22 implants were placed with no complications. Category II consisted of wide alveolar rim, lateral bone surface concavity; 4 (24%) of the 17 ridges were assigned to this category, and a total of 8 implants were placed, with fenestration defects being the most frequent complication (2 of 8 implants [25%]). Category III consisted of narrow alveolar rim, lateral bone surface concavity; 5 (29.4%) of the 17 ridges were assigned to this category, and a total of 13 implants were placed, with dehiscence defects being the most frequent complication (4 of 13 implants [31%]). Category IV consisted of distraction transport segment forming a bridge, without bone formed beneath, necessitating guided bone regeneration; 1 (6%) of the 17 ridges was assigned to this category, and following bone regeneration 1 implant was placed, without complications. Subcategory D consisted of lingual deviation of the distraction axis, occurring in any of categories I to IV, and when severe requiring corrective osteotomy to free and reposition the transport segment and neoformed bone; 4 (24%) of the 17 ridges were assigned to this subcategory (ie, to subcategory ID, IID, IIID, or IVD); in 1 case, the deviation was severe, requiring corrective osteotomy; in this case 3 implants were placed, without complications.
CONCLUSION: This preliminary morphologic classification of the postdistraction alveolar ridge effectively categorizes the variation observed in our patients and in our experience provides a useful basis for decision-making regarding implant placement. However, further studies are required to confirm the generality of this classification and incidences of complications in each category.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve patients (7 women and 5 men; mean age, 42.6 years; age range, 30 to 57 years) underwent a total of 17 alveolar ridge distractions before the placement of a total of 44 dental implants. Ridge bone morphology was evaluated and categorized at implant placement, with subsequent evaluation of the frequency and type of complications in each category.
RESULTS: Four morphologic categories were identified, as follows. Category I consisted of wide alveolar rim and no bone defects; 7 (41.2%) of the 17 ridges were assigned to this category, and a total of 22 implants were placed with no complications. Category II consisted of wide alveolar rim, lateral bone surface concavity; 4 (24%) of the 17 ridges were assigned to this category, and a total of 8 implants were placed, with fenestration defects being the most frequent complication (2 of 8 implants [25%]). Category III consisted of narrow alveolar rim, lateral bone surface concavity; 5 (29.4%) of the 17 ridges were assigned to this category, and a total of 13 implants were placed, with dehiscence defects being the most frequent complication (4 of 13 implants [31%]). Category IV consisted of distraction transport segment forming a bridge, without bone formed beneath, necessitating guided bone regeneration; 1 (6%) of the 17 ridges was assigned to this category, and following bone regeneration 1 implant was placed, without complications. Subcategory D consisted of lingual deviation of the distraction axis, occurring in any of categories I to IV, and when severe requiring corrective osteotomy to free and reposition the transport segment and neoformed bone; 4 (24%) of the 17 ridges were assigned to this subcategory (ie, to subcategory ID, IID, IIID, or IVD); in 1 case, the deviation was severe, requiring corrective osteotomy; in this case 3 implants were placed, without complications.
CONCLUSION: This preliminary morphologic classification of the postdistraction alveolar ridge effectively categorizes the variation observed in our patients and in our experience provides a useful basis for decision-making regarding implant placement. However, further studies are required to confirm the generality of this classification and incidences of complications in each category.