Distribution of the intraosseous branch of the posterior superior alveolar artery relative to the posterior maxillary teeth.

Purpose: Preoperative identification of the intraosseous posterior superior alveolar artery (PSAA) is critical when planning sinus surgery. This study was conducted to determine the distance between the cementoenamel junction and the PSAA, as well as to identify factors influencing the detection of the PSAA on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: In total, 254 CBCT scans of maxillary sinuses, acquired with 2 different scanners, were examined to identify the PSAA. The distance from the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) to the PSAA was recorded at each maxillary posterior tooth position. Binomial logistic regression and multiple linear regression were employed to evaluate the effects of scanner type, CBCT parameters, sex, and age on PSAA detection and CEJ-PSAA distance, respectively. P-values less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. Results: The mean CEJ-PSAA distances at the second molar, first molar, second premolar, and first premolar positions were 17.0±4.0 mm, 21.8±4.1 mm, 19.5±4.7 mm, and 19.9±4.9 mm for scanner 1, respectively, and 17.3±3.5 mm, 16.9±4.3 mm, 18.5±4.1 mm, and 18.4±4.3 mm for scanner 2. No independent variable significantly influenced PSAA detection. However, tooth position (b=-0.67, P<0.05) and scanner type (b=-1.3, P<0.05) were significant predictors of CEJ-PSAA distance. Conclusion: CBCT-based estimates of CEJ-PSAA distance were comparable to those obtained in previous studies involving cadavers, CT, and CBCT. The type of CBCT scanner may slightly influence this measurement. No independent variable significantly impacted PSAA detection.

Clinical protocol selection for alveolar ridge augmentation at sites exhibiting slight, moderate, and severe horizontal ridge deficiencies.

FOCUSED CLINICAL QUESTION: What factors identify the optimal bone augmentation techniques for managing slight, moderate, and severe horizontal alveolar ridge deficiency (ARD) at dental implant sites? SUMMARY: Horizontal ARD is a concern at a high proportion of sites receiving dental implants, and clinicians have developed a variety of surgical procedures to address such defects. In a particular case, selection of the optimal treatment may depend predominantly on defect severity, location (anterior versus posterior), and configuration (contained versus noncontained). This report provides a framework for selecting an augmentation method when presented with a slight, moderate, or severe horizontal ARD at a site requiring dental implant placement. CONCLUSION: Multiple treatment options are available for planned implant sites exhibiting horizontal ARD; severe posterior and slight anterior defects intuitively call for different approaches. Although rigid guidelines for selecting the optimal augmentation method do not exist, some techniques are poorly suited for esthetically demanding sites. A framework considering defect severity, location, and configuration may help guide clinical decisions on this topic.