Staged extractions and implant placement in a periodontally compromised patient: A clinical report.

Staging the extraction of selected teeth in a periodontally compromised patient during complete mouth rehabilitation has advantages, including avoiding a transitional complete denture, keeping the patient with a fixed prosthesis throughout the treatment without the need to immediately load the implants, maintaining the interdental papillae, and providing comfort for the patient. The need for a multistep extended treatment and additional cost are the main disadvantage of this approach. This clinical report describes the clinical steps and follow-up of a staging approach and implant placement in a periodontally compromised patient with excessive gingival display to achieve a good functional and esthetic result.

Rehabilitation of atrophic maxilla: a review of 101 zygomatic implants.

INTRODUCTION: Zygomatic implants are a good rehabilitation alternative for upper maxilla with severe bone reabsorption. These implants reduce the need for onlay-type bone grafting in the posterior sectors and for maxillary sinus lift procedures - limiting the use of bone grafts to the anterior zone of the upper jaw in those cases where grafting is considered necessary. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the survival of 101 zygomatic implants placed in upper maxilla presenting important bone reabsorption, with a follow-up of 1-72 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was made of 101 Zygoma(R) implants (Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) placed in 54 patients with totally edentulous and atrophic upper maxilla, in the period between 1998-2004. There were 35 women and 19 men, subjected to rehabilitation in the form of fixed prostheses and overdentures using 1-2 zygomatic implants and 2-7 implants in the anterior maxillary zone. The principal study variables were smoking, a history of sinusitis, the degree of bone reabsorption, and peri-implant bone loss, among others. RESULTS: The descriptive analysis of the 101 zygomatic implants placed in 54 patients with a mean age of 56 years (range 38-75) yielded a percentage survival of 96.04%, with four failed implants that were removed (two before and two after prosthetic loading). Nine patients were smokers, and none of the 54 subjects reported a history of sinus disorders. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Zygomatic implants are designed for use in compromised upper maxilla. They allow the clinician to shorten the treatment time, affording an interesting alternative for fixed prosthetic rehabilitation. This study confirms that zygomatic bone offers predictable anchorage and acceptable support function for prostheses in atrophic jaws. However, these implants are not without complications. Longer-term evaluations are needed of zygomatic implant survival in order to establish a correct clinical prognosis.

Rehabilitation of atrophic maxilla: A review of 101 zygomatic implants

No disponible

Introduction: Zygomatic implants are a good rehabilitation alternative for upper maxilla with severe bone reabsorption. These implants reduce the need for onlay-type bone grafting in the posterior sectors and for maxillary sinus lift procedures - limiting the use of bone grafts to the anterior zone of the upper jaw in those cases where grafting is considered necessary.Objective: To evaluate the survival of 101 zygomatic implants placed in upper maxilla presenting important bone reabsorption, with a follow-up of 1-72 months.Patients and methods: A retrospective study was made of 101 Zygoma® implants (Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden)placed in 54 patients with totally edentulous and atrophic upper maxilla, in the period between 1998-2004. There were 35 women and 19 men, subjected to rehabilitation in the form of fixed prostheses and overdentures using 1-2 zygomatic implants and 2-7 implants in the anterior maxillary zone. The principal study variables were smoking, a history of sinusitis, the degree of bone reabsorption, and peri-implant bone loss, among others.Results: The descriptive analysis of the 101 zygomatic implants placed in 54 patients with a mean age of 56 years (range 38-75) yielded a percentage survival of 96.04%, with four failed implants that were removed (two before and two after prosthetic loading). Nine patients were smokers, and none of the 54 subjects reported a history of sinus disorders.Discussion and conclusions: Zygomatic implants are designed for use in compromised upper maxilla. They allow the clinician to shorten the treatment time, affording an interesting alternative for fixed prosthetic rehabilitation. This study confirms that zygomatic bone offers predictable anchorage and acceptable support function for prostheses inatrophic jaws. However, these implants are not without complications. Longer-term evaluations are needed of zygomatic implant survival in order to establish a correct clinical prognosis (AU)

Endosseous dental implant fractures an analysis of 21 cases

No disponible

Implant fracture is an infrequent cause of implant failure. The present study evaluates 21 fractured implants, with an analysis of patient age and sex, the type, length and diameter of the implant, positioning in the dental arch, the type of prosthetic rehabilitation involved, the number of abutments and pontics, the presence or absence of distal extensions or cantilevers, and loading time to fracture.Implant fracture was more common in males than in females (15:4), and the mean patient age was 56.9 years. Most cases (n = 19) corresponded to implant-supported fixed prostheses - 16 with cantilevers of different lengths – while only two fractured implants were supporting overdentures instead of fixed prostheses. The great majority of fractured implants (80.9%) were located in the molar and premolar regions, and most fractured within 3-4 years after loading.It is important to know and apply the measures required to prevent implant fracture, and to seek the best individualized solution for each case - though complete implant removal is usually the treatment of choice

Endosseous dental implant fractures: an analysis of 21 cases.

Implant fracture is an infrequent cause of implant failure. The present study evaluates 21 fractured implants, with an analysis of patient age and sex, the type, length and diameter of the implant, positioning in the dental arch, the type of prosthetic rehabilitation involved, the number of abutments and pontics, the presence or absence of distal extensions or cantilevers, and loading time to fracture. Implant fracture was more common in males than in females (15:4), and the mean patient age was 56.9 years. Most cases (n = 19) corresponded to implant-supported fixed prostheses - 16 with cantilevers of different lengths - while only two fractured implants were supporting overdentures instead of fixed prostheses. The great majority of fractured implants (80.9%) were located in the molar and premolar regions, and most fractured within 3-4 years after loading. It is important to know and apply the measures required to prevent implant fracture, and to seek the best individualized solution for each case - though complete implant removal is usually the treatment of choice.