Clinical oral implants research · 2021
Tilted versus axial implant distribution in the posterior edentulous maxilla: A CBCT analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Hamilton Adam, Jamjoom Faris Z, Alnasser Muhsen, Starr Jacqueline R, Friedland Bernard, Gallucci German O
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether distally angulating an implant is a successful strategy to avoid the maxillary sinus and the need for bone augmentation, while increasing the anterior-posterior (A-P) implant distribution in the edentulous maxilla.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 115 patients with edentulous maxillae, virtual implant planning was performed utilizing cone-beam computer tomographs. Axial (8 mm length) and tilted (12 mm length) dental implants with 30-degree and 45-degree angulation were virtually positioned to avoid entering the maxillary sinus, while maximizing A-P distribution. Measurements were made between the tilted and axial implants to assess the change in A-P distribution of implants at the implant and abutment levels.
RESULTS: Forty-seven sites (20.4%) were not able to have either treatment modality with insufficient bone for implant placement. Axial implants were placed more distally than 45-degree and 30-degree tilted implants in 24% and 42% of sites, respectively. The average change in A-P spread measured at the implant level, for 30- and 45-degree tilted implants was -0.25 mm (95% CI -0.76, 0.26) and 1.9 mm (95% CI 1.4, 2.3), respectively. When measured from the center of each multi-unit abutment the average increase in A-P distances for tilted implants appears larger in the 30-degree and 45-degree groups by 0.97 mm and 1.74 mm, respectively compared to measurements at the implant level.
CONCLUSIONS: Angulating 12 mm implants provides a limited increase in A-P distribution of implants in edentulous rehabilitation in most situations. In certain patients, the use of 8mm axial implants may provide a greater A-P spread.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 115 patients with edentulous maxillae, virtual implant planning was performed utilizing cone-beam computer tomographs. Axial (8 mm length) and tilted (12 mm length) dental implants with 30-degree and 45-degree angulation were virtually positioned to avoid entering the maxillary sinus, while maximizing A-P distribution. Measurements were made between the tilted and axial implants to assess the change in A-P distribution of implants at the implant and abutment levels.
RESULTS: Forty-seven sites (20.4%) were not able to have either treatment modality with insufficient bone for implant placement. Axial implants were placed more distally than 45-degree and 30-degree tilted implants in 24% and 42% of sites, respectively. The average change in A-P spread measured at the implant level, for 30- and 45-degree tilted implants was -0.25 mm (95% CI -0.76, 0.26) and 1.9 mm (95% CI 1.4, 2.3), respectively. When measured from the center of each multi-unit abutment the average increase in A-P distances for tilted implants appears larger in the 30-degree and 45-degree groups by 0.97 mm and 1.74 mm, respectively compared to measurements at the implant level.
CONCLUSIONS: Angulating 12 mm implants provides a limited increase in A-P distribution of implants in edentulous rehabilitation in most situations. In certain patients, the use of 8mm axial implants may provide a greater A-P spread.