Pterygoid and tuberosity implants in the atrophic posterior maxilla: A retrospective cohort study

被引:6
作者
Konstantinovic, Vitomir S. [1 ]
Abd-Ul-Salam, Hani [2 ,6 ]
Jelovac, Drago [3 ,4 ]
Ivanjac, Filip [4 ]
Milicic, Biljana [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Belgrade, Sch Dent Med, Clin Maxillofacial Surg, Belgrade, Serbia
[2] McGill Univ, Fac Dent Med & Oral Hlth Sci, Dept Populat Oral Hlth, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[3] Gulf Med Univ, Coll Dent, Fac Dent, Dept Diagnost & Oral Surg Dent Sci, Ajman, U Arab Emirates
[4] Univ Belgrade, Sch Dent Med, Clin Maxillofacial Surg, Belgrade, Serbia
[5] Univ Belgrade, Sch Dent Med, Dept Med Stat & Informat, Belgrade, Serbia
[6] Fac Dent Med & Oral Hlth Sci, 2001,McGill Coll 500, Montreal, PQ H3A 1G1, Canada
关键词
PTERYGOMAXILLARY REGION; DENTAL IMPLANTS; FIXED REHABILITATION; COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; EDENTULOUS ARCHES; TILTED IMPLANTS; IV BONE; PLACEMENT; RESECTION; SURVIVAL;
D O I
10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.06.007
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Statement of problem. Rehabilitation of the partially or completely edentulous posterior maxilla using dental implants is a clinical challenge because of the presence of the maxillary sinus, as well as the low quality and quantity of bone in that region. In addition to bone augmentation procedures, posterior maxillary rehabilitation using implants includes their anchoring in bones such as the zygoma, pterygoid, and maxillary tuberosity, as well as in short implants. However, the performance of pterygoid and tuberosity implants in the atrophic posterior maxilla is unclear.Purpose. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the survival of tuberosity and pterygoid implants in patients with posterior maxillary atrophy.Material and methods. A nonprobability convenient sample of patients who had received fixed prostheses on implants placed in the maxillary tuberosity or pterygoid regions was analyzed retrospectively. Demographic variables included sex (male, female) and age. Implant-related variables included surface characteristics, site of placement, implant design, length, diameter, and anteroposterior insertion angle. Prosthetic-related variables included the type of reconstruction for rehabilitation and loading protocols. Implant survival, complications, crestal bone loss, and follow-up intervals were also documented. Collected data were analyzed at both patient and implant levels. The demographics and implant characteristics of patients receiving pterygoid or tuberosity implants were analyzed with a statistical software program (& alpha;=.05). Survival analysis was estimated by using the nonparametric Kaplan-Meier curve.Results. A total of 119 patients had 183 pterygoid or tuberosity implants inserted. Most implants in the pterygoid region (71.5%) were o4.1 mm (87.4%) and 15 mm in length (60.1%). The most common prostheses were complete maxillary reconstructions (49.2%) with late loading (74.3%). The average implant anteroposterior insertion angle was 60.8 degrees. The cumulative survival rate was 97.3% (n=178) during the mean follow-up period of 57 months (range 1 to 168 months). Among all implants placed, 2.7% failed (n=5) within 2 months of their placement. The statistically significant differences noted between tuberosity and pterygoid implants were related to design, surface characteristics, and loading. The average crestal bone loss was 1.5 mm. Conclusions. The survival of the implants placed in the maxillary tuberosity and pterygoid regions was high in patients with posterior maxillary atrophy. (J Prosthet Dent 2023;130
引用
收藏
页码:219.e1 / 219.e10
页数:10
相关论文
共 61 条
[1]   Immediate Function of Partial Fixed Rehabilitation With Axial and Tilted Implants Having Intrasinus Insertion [J].
Agliardi, Enrico Luigi ;
Tete, Stefano ;
Romeo, Davide ;
Malchiodi, Luciano ;
Gherlone, Enrico .
JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2014, 25 (03) :851-855
[2]  
Ali Seyed Asharaf, 2014, J Indian Prosthodont Soc, V14, P196, DOI 10.1007/s13191-014-0360-4
[3]  
Alves CC, 2009, INT J PERIODONT REST, V29, P161
[4]   Clinical outcomes of pterygoid implants: Systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Araujo, Rafael Zetehaku ;
Santiago Junior, Joel Ferreira ;
Cardoso, Camila Lopes ;
Benites Condezo, Anthony Froy ;
Moreira Junior, Rosenvaldo ;
Curi, Marcos Martins .
JOURNAL OF CRANIO-MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2019, 47 (04) :651-660
[5]  
Bahat O, 1992, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, V7, P459
[6]  
Balaji VR, 2017, J PHARM BIOALLIED SC, V9, pS261, DOI 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_103_17
[7]  
Balshi SF, 2005, INT J ORAL MAX IMPL, V20, P946
[8]  
Balshi T J, 1992, Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, V12, P345
[9]  
Balshi Thomas J, 2003, Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, V5, P11, DOI 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00177.x
[10]   Branemark System Implant Lengths in the Pterygomaxillary Region: A Retrospective Comparison [J].
Balshi, Thomas J. ;
Wolfinger, Glenn J. ;
Slauch, Robert W. ;
Balshi, Stephen F. .
IMPLANT DENTISTRY, 2013, 22 (06) :610-612