DOCSLIB.ORG

Maxillary All-On-Four® Surgery: a Review of Intraoperative Surgical Principles and Implant Placement Strategies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Maxillary All-On-Four® Surgery: a Review of Intraoperative Surgical Principles and Implant Placement Strategies Maxillary All-on-Four® Surgery: A Review of Intraoperative Surgical Principles and Implant Placement Strategies David K. Sylvester II, DDS Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center Private Practice, ClearChoice Dental Implant Center, St. Louis, Mo. Ole T. Jensen DDS, MS Adjunct Professor, University of Utah School of Dentistry Thomas D. Berry, DDS, MD Private Practice, ClearChoice Dental Implant Center, Atlanta, Ga. John Pappas, DDS Private Practice, ClearChoice Dental Implant Center, St. Louis, Mo. residual bone. Advocates for additive treatment BACKGROUND attempt to procure the bone volume necessary for implant support through horizontal and vertical augmentation techniques. Graftless Implant rehabilitation of full-arch maxillary approaches seek to offer full-arch implant edentulism has undergone significant changes support through creative utilization of angled since the concept of osseointegration was first implants in existing native bone. introduced. Controversy over the ideal number of implants, axial versus angled implant Biomechanical analysis of the masticatory placement, and grafting versus graftless system repeatedly demonstrated that the treatment modalities have been subjects of greatest bite forces are located in the posterior continuous debate and evolution. Implant jaws. Anatomic limitations of bone availability supported full-arch rehabilitation of the maxilla due to atrophy and sinus pneumatization make was originally thought to be more difficult than maxillary posterior implant placement its mandibular counterpart due to lower overall challenging. The resulting controversy with bone density. regards to full-arch rehabilitation was whether prostheses with long distal cantilevers could be The foundation for any implant supported full- tolerated. If tilting posterior implants could arch rehabilitation is the underlying bone. The circumvent anatomic limitations while dilemma faced by most surgeons is whether to maximizing the use of residual bone, cantilevers treat this residual bone in an additive fashion could be reduced. through bone augmentation, or a graftless fashion utilizing angled implants secured in Nonaxial placement and loading of implants 4. Angled implants provide secondary was thought to be biomechanically unfavorable resistance to vertical displacement by preventing osseointegration and leading to virtue of their nonaxial, oblique position increased peri-implant bone loss.1 Limitations in the archform which is perpendicular to imposed by residual maxillary bone availability occlusal forces. This stabilization is and the requirement for axial placement of separate from insertional torque and is implants meant cantilever length often needed only enhanced by cross-arch stabilization to be 20 mm or greater in order to provide 5. Distal cantilevers are minimized when a molar occlusion. Conversely, literature at the more posterior emergence of distal time reported a direct association between implants is achieved resulting in greater cantilever length and marginal bone loss/failure biomechanical stability. of underlying implants.2 It had been shown that 6. Anteroposterior spread (AP spread) is prostheses with cantilevers less than 15 mm enhanced. survived better than those with cantilevers 7. An alternative treatment option for greater than 15 mm.3 patients with severe systemic conditions which may render them poor candidates Today, Maxillary All-on-Four® is a common for bone grafting. treatment modality utilized by clinicians all over the world for immediate full-arch rehabilitation. The technique evolved as a graftless solution ALL-ON-FOUR® HISTORY which sought to reduce treatment time and avoid complications associated with bone In 1991 and 1992, Bruggenkate published grafting. Potential bone grafting complications reports of angled implant placement in the include: increased cost, increase treatment time, posterior maxilla used to support donor site morbidity, significant limitations overdentures.4,5 In 1995, a one-year primate imposed by chronic systemic medical study performed by Celletti et. al. demonstrated conditions, and unpredictable reduction in bone osseointegration of both straight and angled graft volume as a result of resorption. implants. This study provided both clinical and histologic evidence of implant osseointegration Tilted implants were proposed as a method to irrespective of implant angulation.6 avoid anatomic structures while achieving sufficient biomechanical support. By tilting In 1995, Brånemark published a 10-year survival implants, dense cortical bone of the natural study of fixed prostheses retained with either maxillofacial buttresses could be engaged, even four or six implants. This article suggested that, in cases of severe maxillary atrophy. Theoretical although there was a tendency for increased advantages of tilting implants included: failure rates in patients with only 4 implants, the overall survival rate for both implants and 1. Avoidance of anatomic structures. prostheses was the same for both groups. Prior 2. Longer, tilted implants could be placed in to this publication, the tendency of some cases of vertical bone deficiency clinicians was to place as many maxillary obviating the need for bone grafting. implants as possible in cases of full-arch 3. Bicortical stabilization can be more easily rehabilitation.7 This publication was the first to achieved. Longer, tilted implants make demonstrate equal success with an implant residual cortical bone more accessible foundation consisting of only 4 implants. resulting in greater primary stability. observed time period only one maxillary implant A graftless surgical technique and medium- was lost. length study using angled implants was published by Mattsson et. al. in 1999.8 This In 2001, Aparicio et. al.11 used a combination of solution to maxillary full-arch rehabilitation was angled and axial implants as an alternative to postulated to increase treatment predictability, sinus grafting in patients with severe maxillary decrease patient cost, and decrease resorption. Implant surgery was two-stage with complication rates. 86 implants were placed burying of implant fixtures at the time of into 15 patients. Patients were followed for an surgery. Final restorations consisted of fixed average of 45 months. During this time, one partial prostheses. Twenty-five patients were implant was lost resulting in a 98.8% implant followed for an average of 37 months (up to 5 survival rate. All patients had a stable prosthesis years). Residual dense bone was engaged by at the end of the observation period. Bilateral angling implants parallel with the anterior and fenestrations were created into the maxillary posterior walls of the sinus. In these instances, sinuses for the purpose of anatomic exploration posterior implants found apical stabilization in and bone sounding of the anteromedial sinus the pterygomaxillary region, and anterior wall. Posterior implants were placed parallel to implants were apically stabilized at the piriform. the sinus walls. Anterior implants were placed In other instances, the curvature of the palatal axially. Eighty-eight percent of implants vault was apically engaged. A total of 101 installed had 2-5 exposed palatal threads which implants were placed. The overall prosthesis were not grafted. This finding did not seem to survival rate was 100%. Tilted implants had a lead to any mucosal problems or marginal bone survival rate of 100%. Axial implants had a resorption according to their report. Primary survival rate of 96.5%. closure was obtained at the time of surgery. In this study, patients were not allowed to wear a At the time, these studies represented a subset removable prosthesis for 2 weeks. Implants of those available in the body of literature that were uncovered at 6 months. The authors suggested axial and tilted implants had concluded that the maximum use of residual comparable success in short and medium- bone stock, angulation of implants, and exposed length follow-up periods. Still, surgeries were palatal implant threads may allow for full-arch two-stage with healing periods of 6-8 months rehabilitation of severely resorbed maxillas. before implant loading. Advances in implant design and surface coatings aimed to reduce In 2000, Krekmanov reported placement of healing time and increase bone-to-implant angled implants in severely resorbed contact. It was found that implant roughness, maxillas.9,10 An open sinus technique was porosity, topography, and surface energy were performed by way of a sinus fenestration, and a synergistic accelerators of osteointegration. straight probe was used to sound the anterior Anodization of implant surfaces as well as air and posterior walls of the sinus. Implants were powered particle abrasion followed by acid placed parallel to the anterior and posterior washings were two techniques manufacturers walls at approximately 30-degree angulations. employed to increase microtexturing of implant A total of 75 maxillary implants were placed and surfaces.12-18 followed for 18 months. Nineteen implants were palatally inclined and placed tangential to In accordance with original principles of the curve of the palate at the molar regions osseointegration, implants were placed and engaging maximum cortical bone. During the buried beneath the soft tissue for a healing period to prevent excessive movement. Studies obtained by underpreparing implant osteotomy later emerged showing that limited
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Root Canal Treatment of Permanent Mandibular First Molar with Six Root Canals: a Rare Case
    CASE REPORT Turk Endod J 2016;1(1):52–54 doi: 10.14744/TEJ.2016.65375 Root canal treatment of permanent mandibular first molar with six root canals: a rare case Ersan Çiçek,1 Neslihan Yılmaz,1 Murat İçen2 1Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey 2Department of Oral Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey This case report aims to present the management of a mandibular first molar with six root canals, four in mesial and two in distal root. A 16-year-old male patient who has suffered from localized dull pain in his lower left posterior region for a long time was referred to the endodontic clinic. On clinical examina- tion, neither caries lesion nor restoration was observed on the mandibular molar teeth; but the occlu- sal surface of the teeth had pathologic attrition. The mandibular and maxillary molars were tender to percussion due to bruxism, but there was no tenderness towards palpation. All of the molars revealed normal responses to the vitality tests. It was suggested that he should use the night-guard against brux- ism. After three months, his pain almost completely relieved, but the percussion of the left mandibular molar was still going on. After access cavity preparation, careful examination of the pulp chamber floor with dental loupe and endodontic explorer (DG 16 probe) showed six canal orifices, four of mesially and two of distally. CBCT scan was performed in order to confirm the presence of six canals. Following one year, it was observed that he had no pain.
    [Show full text]
  • Gingival Recession – Etiology and Treatment
    Preventive_V2N2_AUG11:Preventive 8/17/2011 12:54 PM Page 6 Gingival Recession – Etiology and Treatment Mark Nicolucci, D.D.S., M.S., cert. perio implant, F.R.C.D.(C) Murray Arlin, D.D.S., dip perio, F.R.C.D.(C) his article focuses on the recognition and reason is often a prophylactic one; that is we understanding of recession defects of the want to prevent the recession from getting T oral mucosa. Specifically, which cases are worse. This reasoning is also true for the esthetic treatable, how we treat these cases and why we and sensitivity scenarios as well. Severe chose certain treatments. Good evidence has recession is not only more difficult to treat, but suggested that the amount of height of keratinized can also be associated with food impaction, or attached gingiva is independent of the poor esthetics, gingival irritation, root sensitivity, progression of recession (Miyasato et al. 1977, difficult hygiene, increased root caries, loss of Dorfman et al. 1980, 1982, Kennedy et al. 1985, supporting bone and even tooth loss . To avoid Freedman et al. 1999, Wennstrom and Lindhe these complications we would want to treat even 1983). Such a discussion is an important the asymptomatic instances of recession if we consideration with recession defects but this article anticipate them to progress. However, non- will focus simply on a loss of marginal gingiva. progressing recession with no signs or Recession is not simply a loss of gingival symptoms does not need treatment. In order to tissue; it is a loss of clinical attachment and by know which cases need treatment, we need to necessity the supporting bone of the tooth that distinguish between non-progressing and was underneath the gingiva.
    [Show full text]
  • Tooth Size Proportions Useful in Early Diagnosis
    #63 Ortho-Tain, Inc. 1-800-541-6612 Tooth Size Proportions Useful In Early Diagnosis As the permanent incisors begin to erupt starting with the lower central, it becomes helpful to predict the sizes of the other upper and lower adult incisors to determine the required space necessary for straightness. Although there are variations in the mesio-distal widths of the teeth in any individual when proportions are used, the sizes of the unerupted permanent teeth can at least be fairly accurately pre-determined from the mesio-distal measurements obtained from the measurements of already erupted permanent teeth. As the mandibular permanent central breaks tissue, a mesio-distal measurement of the tooth is taken. The size of the lower adult lateral is obtained by adding 0.5 mm.. to the lower central size (see a). (a) Width of lower lateral = m-d width of lower central + 0.5 mm. The sizes of the upper incisors then become important as well. The upper permanent central is 3.25 mm.. wider than the lower central (see b). (b) Size of upper central = m-d width of lower central + 3.25 mm. The size of the upper lateral is 2.0 mm. smaller mesio-distally than the maxillary central (see c), and 1.25 mm. larger than the lower central (see d). (c) Size of upper lateral = m-d width of upper central - 2.0 mm. (d) Size of upper lateral = m-d width of lower central + 1.25 mm. The combined mesio-distal widths of the lower four adult incisors are four times the width of the mandibular central plus 1.0 mm.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of the Human Maxilla, Vomer, and Paraseptal Cartilages
    THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HUMAN MAXILLA, VOMER, AND PARASEPTAL CARTILAGES. By Professor FAWCETT, M.D., University of Bristol. THE usually accepted descriptions of the development of the maxilla of man state that it arises by a number of separate centres-the number varying somewhat with the authority, likewise the situation of these centres. No description of the maxilla can be considered complete unless at the same time notice is taken of the manner of development of the premaxilla, which, of course, forms the anterior segment of the adult bone as usually interpreted. But the consideration of the development of the premaxilla may be left until that of the maxilla has been fully dealt with. Before breaking new ground, it may be well to state what are the usual statements with reference to the ossification of the maxilla. These statements are apparently for the most part based on work done by Callender, Toldt, Rambaud and Renault, and Bland Sutton, so far as concerns human anatomy. More recently Franklin Mall has given his views on the subject in the American Jouarnal of Anatomy, views based on observation of specimens treated by the "clearing" method of Schulze. So far as they go, these statements are in harmony with my own notions, which I have for several years now taught. A very precise account is given in Cunningham's Text-book of Anatomy. The maxilla is there stated to be developed in the connective tissue around the oral cavity of the embryo from centres which are not preceded by cartilage, of uncertain number, as early fusion takes place between them.
    [Show full text]
  • MAXILLARY FRACTURES Is Mandatory and May Include Both Plain Films and a Computed Tomographic (CT) the Maxilla Forms the Largest Component of Scan
    Radiographic evaluation of the fracture MAXILLARY FRACTURES is mandatory and may include both plain films and a computed tomographic (CT) The maxilla forms the largest component of scan. The CT scan has now essentially the middle third of the facial skeleton. The maxil- replaced plain films as the Ògold standardÓ la is a key bone in the midface that is closely asso- in both evaluation and treatment planning. ciated with adjacent bones providing structural If physical findings and plain films are not support between the cranial base and the occlusal suggestive of a zygomatic fracture, the eval- plane. Fractures of the maxilla occur less fre- uation may end here. However, if they do quently than those of the mandible or nose due to suggest fracture, a coronal and axial CT the strong structural support of this bone. The scan should be obtained. The CT scan will midface consists of alternating thick and thin sec- accurately reveal the extent of orbital tions of bone that are capable of resisting signifi- involvement, as well as degree of displace- cant force. This structurally strong bone provides ment of the fractures. This study is vital for protection for the globes and brain, projection of planning the operative approach. the midface, and support for occlusion. Reestablishing continuity of these buttresses is the Historically, closed reduction was the foundation on which maxillary fracture treatment method of choice for nearly all zygomatic is based. fractures. Multiple methods were employed, but most involved simply exert- Renee LeFort (1901) provided the earliest clas- ing pressure underneath the malar emi- sification system of maxillary fractures.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Surgery Clinical Booklet
    I AM POWERFUL . All rights reserved. No information or part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form without or transmitted No information or part of this document may be reproduced . All rights reserved. ® - Copyright © 2013 SATELEC - Copyright . ® Ref. I57373 - V3 02/2016 CLINICAL BOOKLET SURGERY Non contractual document - Non contractual the prior permission of ACTEON SATELEC® a Company of ACTEON® Group 17 avenue Gustave Eiffel • BP 30216 33708 MERIGNAC cedex • France Tel: +33 (0) 556 340 607 • Fax: +33 (0) 556 349 292 E.mail. [email protected] www.acteongroup.com Acknowledgements This clinical booklet has been written with the guidance and backing of university lecturers and scientists, specialists and scientific consultants: Dr. G. GAGNOT, private practice in periodontology, Vitré and University Hospital Assistant, Rennes University, France. Dr. S. GIRTHOFER, private practice in implantology, Munich, Germany. Pr. F. LOUISE, specialist in periodontolgy-implantology, Vice Dean of the Faculty of Dentistry, University of the Mediterranean, Marseilles, France. Dr. Y. MACIA, private practitioner, University Hospital Assistant in the Department of Oral Surgery, Marseilles, France. Dr. P. MARIN, private practice in implantology, Bordeaux, France. Dr. J-F MICHEL, private practice in Periodontology and Implantology, Rennes, France. Dr. E. NORMAND, private practice in Periodontology and Implantology, Bordeaux, University Hospital Assistant in Victor Segalen, Bordeaux II, France. Our protocols, and the findings that support them, originate from university theses and international publications, which you will find referenced in the bibliography. We have of course gained tremendous experience over the last thirty years from the dentists worldwide who, through their recommendations and advice, have contributed to the improvement of our products.
    [Show full text]
  • Furcation Root Surface Anatomy
    the Furcation to the cementoenamal junction were excluded from Morphology sample. in Relative to Periodontal The sample is the same as was used by the author a previously reported study9 and the mesio-distal length Treatment and furcation entrance diameter reported there are used for correlation in the present investigation. a"lS Furcation Root Surface All teeth were sectioned at right angles to the long Anatomy as at a level 2 mm apical to the most apical root division illustrated in I. A fine carborundum disc was Figure 15 used to make the section except in 22 maxillary and by mandibular teeth where a coarser wheel was used. The m.d.sc. Robert C. Bower, latter teeth were not used in the second part of the study- (W. Australia)* The level of section was established using the micrometer screw chuck of a specially constructed tooth sectioning lathe. Recent longitudinal studies of teeth with periodontal The cut tooth surfaces were examined using a dissect- breakdown furcation mm involving the present encouraging ing microscopef with a lOx eyepiece and 10/ioo results for the of such teeth.1"'' Both prognosis pocket micrometer disc to give a stated magnification of 6.3*· elimination!·'' (sometimes necessitating root resection) Measurement the micrometer disc was ' by calibrated and soft tissue to offer a better readaptation" appear using a 1 cm certified plate. One reticle unit was found than was In either of these prognosis formerly imagined. equal to 1.065 mm. to 2 approaches the problem, the anatomy of the furcal The dimensions measured are illustrated in Figures 4 aspects of the roots is likely to influence the result.
    [Show full text]
  • An Impacted Primary Lateral Incisor As a Cause of Delayed Erupt,On
    Animpacted primary lateral incisoras a causeof delayed erupt,onof a permanenttooth: case report TimothyW. Adams, DDS rolonged impaction of primary incisors is un- process, but this condition has not been reported to usual. There have been only two such cases affect the primary anterior teeth. 6 Partial impaction p reportedin the dental literature. 1.2 Bothcases in- of primary, permanent, or supernumeraryteeth in the volved maxillary primary incisors and the etiology may area of an alveolar cleft does occur.4 Other syndromes have been accidental trauma in both. Luxationinjuries are associated with cyst formation and impaction of in the primary dentition are commondue to the resil- multiple secondary or supernumeraryteeth (cleidoc- ient nature of the bone surrounding these teeth, and ranial dysplacia, Gardner syndrome)? However, completeintrusion of erupted primary incisors into the Andreasen4 states that in cleidocranial dysostosis, the alveolar process occasionally occurs.3 However,even primary teeth, because of their superficial position, whena traumatic condition remains undiagnosed, in- nearly always erupt spontaneously. truded primary incisors don’t usually remain impacted This case emphasizes the importance of a thorough but re-erupt within a 2- to 4-moperiod following the dental history and radiographic examin children with injury? Belostokyet al.1 describeda case in whicha 10o missing teeth? Prolonged impaction of the maxillary month-oldfemale child fell, and a maxillary primary primaryleft lateral incisor wasassociated with eruption central incisor presumed"lost" had apparently been in- delay, ectopic eruption, and an apparent dilaceration of truded throughthe buccal cortical plate whereit could the root of the maxillaryleft permanentlateral incisor. not re-erupt.
    [Show full text]
  • Diagnosis Questions and Answers
    1.0 DIAGNOSIS – 6 QUESTIONS 1. Where is the narrowest band of attached gingiva found? 1. Lingual surfaces of maxillary incisors and facial surfaces of maxillary first molars 2. Facial surfaces of mandibular second premolars and lingual of canines 3. Facial surfaces of mandibular canines and first premolars and lingual of mandibular incisors* 4. None of the above 2. All these types of tissue have keratinized epithelium EXCEPT 1. Hard palate 2. Gingival col* 3. Attached gingiva 4. Free gingiva 16. Which group of principal fibers of the periodontal ligament run perpendicular from the alveolar bone to the cementum and resist lateral forces? 1. Alveolar crest 2. Horizontal crest* 3. Oblique 4. Apical 5. Interradicular 33. The width of attached gingiva varies considerably with the greatest amount being present in the maxillary incisor region; the least amount is in the mandibular premolar region. 1. Both statements are TRUE* 39. The alveolar process forms and supports the sockets of the teeth and consists of two parts, the alveolar bone proper and the supporting alveolar bone; ostectomy is defined as removal of the alveolar bone proper. 1. Both statements are TRUE* 40. Which structure is the inner layer of cells of the junctional epithelium and attaches the gingiva to the tooth? 1. Mucogingival junction 2. Free gingival groove 3. Epithelial attachment * 4. Tonofilaments 1 49. All of the following are part of the marginal (free) gingiva EXCEPT: 1. Gingival margin 2. Free gingival groove 3. Mucogingival junction* 4. Interproximal gingiva 53. The collar-like band of stratified squamous epithelium 10-20 cells thick coronally and 2-3 cells thick apically, and .25 to 1.35 mm long is the: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Study of Root Canal Anatomy in Human Permanent Teeth
    Brazilian Dental Journal (2015) 26(5): 530-536 ISSN 0103-6440 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201302448 1Department of Stomatologic Study of Root Canal Anatomy in Human Sciences, UFG - Federal University of Goiás, Goiânia, GO, Brazil Permanent Teeth in A Subpopulation 2Department of Radiology, School of Dentistry, UNIC - University of Brazil’s Center Region Using Cone- of Cuiabá, Cuiabá, MT, Brazil 3Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Beam Computed Tomography - Part 1 Preto, USP - University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil Carlos Estrela1, Mike R. Bueno2, Gabriela S. Couto1, Luiz Eduardo G Rabelo1, Correspondence: Prof. Dr. Carlos 1 3 3 Estrela, Praça Universitária s/n, Setor Ana Helena G. Alencar , Ricardo Gariba Silva ,Jesus Djalma Pécora ,Manoel Universitário, 74605-220 Goiânia, 3 Damião Sousa-Neto GO, Brasil. Tel.: +55-62-3209-6254. e-mail: [email protected] The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of roots, root canals and apical foramina in human permanent teeth using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). CBCT images of 1,400 teeth from database previously evaluated were used to determine the frequency of number of roots, root canals and apical foramina. All teeth were evaluated by preview of the planes sagittal, axial, and coronal. Navigation in axial slices of 0.1 mm/0.1 mm followed the coronal to apical direction, as well as the apical to coronal direction. Two examiners assessed all CBCT images. Statistical data were analyzed including frequency distribution and cross-tabulation. The highest frequency of four root canals and four apical foramina was found in maxillary first molars (76%, 33%, respectively), followed by maxillary second molars (41%, 25%, respectively).
    [Show full text]
  • The All-On-Four Treatment Concept: Systematic Review
    J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(3):e474-88. All-on-four: Systematic review Journal section: Prosthetic Dentistry doi:10.4317/jced.53613 Publication Types: Review http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.53613 The all-on-four treatment concept: Systematic review David Soto-Peñaloza 1, Regino Zaragozí-Alonso 2, María Peñarrocha-Diago 3, Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago 4 1 Collaborating Lecturer, Master in Oral Surgery and Implant Dentistry, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Spain Peruvian Army Officer, Stomatology Department, Luis Arias Schreiber-Central Military Hospital, Lima-Perú 2 Dentist, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Spain 3 Assistant Professor of Oral Surgery, Stomatology Department, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Spain 4 Professor and Chairman of Oral Surgery, Stomatology Department, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Spain Correspondence: Unidad de Cirugía Bucal Facultat de Medicina i Odontologìa Universitat de València Gascó Oliag 1 46010 - Valencia, Spain [email protected] Soto-Peñaloza D, Zaragozí-Alonso R, Peñarrocha-Diago MA, Peñarro- cha-Diago M. The all-on-four treatment concept: Systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(3):e474-88. http://www.medicinaoral.com/odo/volumenes/v9i3/jcedv9i3p474.pdf Received: 17/11/2016 Accepted: 16/12/2016 Article Number: 53613 http://www.medicinaoral.com/odo/indice.htm © Medicina Oral S. L. C.I.F. B 96689336 - eISSN: 1989-5488 eMail: [email protected] Indexed in: Pubmed Pubmed Central® (PMC) Scopus DOI® System Abstract Objectives: To systematically review the literature on the “all-on-four” treatment concept regarding its indications, surgical procedures, prosthetic protocols and technical and biological complications after at least three years in function.
    [Show full text]
  • Short Implants Versus Sinus Grafting
    TREATMENT DECISIONS IN THE POSTERIOR MAXILLA: SHORT IMPLANTS VERSUS SINUS GRAFTING Lyndsey Webb*, Martin Chan** Specialty Registrar in Restorative Dentistry*, Consultant in Restorative Dentistry**, Leeds Dental Institute, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9LU Introduction Diagnosis and treatment plan Planning for replacement of teeth in the posterior maxilla using implant restorations is determined by the residual subantral Diagnoses: bone volume and quality. With tooth loss there is a loss of the available vertical bone height, due to a loss of the associated 1. Chronic gingivitis alveolar bone and on-going pneumatisation of the maxillary sinus. In a partially dentate patient, there are several clinical 2. Hypodontia: retained ULC and LRD, missing ULE and LLE with space remaining options available for tooth replacement, including acceptance of a shortened dental arch, providing a removable partial 3. Mild attritive wear, secondary to nocturnal bruxism denture or conventional fixed bridgework, use of short implants, or sinus floor elevation to facilitate placement of longer implants. With very large bone defects further clinical options are available, including the use of zygomatic implants. The treatment plan agreed with the patient was therefore as follows: 1. OHI and scaling Sinus grafting 2. Composite bonding on upper anterior teeth, to close the diastema and regularise tooth size and incisal level 3. Replacement of mobile LRD with resin retained bridge There are two common techniques for sinus grafting. The crestal approach uses pilot drills to create an osteotomy to within 4. Replacement of missing URE with implant retained single crown on Astra EV 4.2 x 6mm implant 2mm of the sinus floor, which is then up-fractured using an osteotome.1 Bone grafting biomaterials are then placed under the 5.
    [Show full text]