4.1 Review

Implant reconstruction of the bone-grafted maxilla: Review of the literature and presentation of 8 cases

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
Volume 64, Issue 4, Pages 674-682

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2005.12.026

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: This study prospectively investigates the long-term success of iliac crest bone grafting and the secondary placement of osseointegrated implants in reconstructing maxillae with severely reduced bone mass. Materials and Methods: Fight consecutive patients (7 women, 1 man), aged 18 to 69 (mean, 49.6), were treated by augmentation of their maxillae with corticocancellous autogenous iliac bone blocks. Forty-one Branemark implants of 7 to 15 mm in length and 3.75 mm in diameter were placed after a minimum delay of 6 months. Bone healing, maintenance of bone height, and implant stability were measured by clinical examination and radiographic control. Results: One patient was lost to follow-up at 24 months after delivery of the prosthesis and one was lost at 75 months. The average duration of follow-up after loading of the implants was 90.5 months, and the longest was 154 months. Thirty-four of 41 (83%) of the implants survived to the end of the observation period. Four of 6 implants that failed were 7 mm in length and the other 2 were 10 mm in length. One 10-mm implant was slept because of poor positioning. All prostheses survived. There was one significant gingival infection that resulted in loss of 1.5 mm of bone after which the implant remained stable. None of the other implants were associated with crestal bone loss of more than 0.5 mm for the duration of this study. Conclusions: Delayed placement of osseointegrated implants in maxillae augmented by iliac bone grafts is predictable and successful in the long term. (c) 2006 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons J Oral Maxillofac Surg 64:674-682, 2006.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available