Maxilla

Abstract: Rehabilitation of atrophied edentulous arches with endosseous implants in the posterior regions is often associated with anatomic problems such as jaw shape and location of the mental loop, mandibular canal, and maxillary sinuses. The purpose of this investigation was to modify the method for implant placement in the posterior part of the jaws to extend fixed implant-connected prostheses further distally, and to reduce the length of cantilevers in complete-arch prostheses without transpositioning the mandibular nerve or performing bone grafting in the maxilla. Forty-seven consecutive patients were treated with implants (25 patients/36 mandibular implants, 22 patients/30 maxillary implants) placed in tilted positions. They were followed a mean of 40 months (mandibles) and 53 months (maxillae). In the mandible, implants close to the mental foramina were tilted posteriorly approximately 25 to 35 degrees. In the maxilla, the posterior implants were placed close to and parallel with the sinus walls and were titled anteriorly/posteriorly approximately 30 to 35 degrees. Patients gained a mean distance of 6.5 mm of prosthesis support in the mandible and 9.3 mm in the maxilla, as a result of implant tilting. There were no implant failures in mandibles. The cumulative success rates in the maxilla at 5 years were 98% for tilted implants and 93% for non-tilted implants. Paresthesias of the mental nerve were observed on 4 sides during the first 2 to 3 weeks after implant placement. Analysis of the load distribution in one mandibular case showed no significant difference between tilted and the non-tilted implants, and the improved prosthesis support was confirmed. Satisfactory medium-term results concerning osseointegration and significant extension of prosthesis support show that the method can be recommended. This technique may allow for longer implants to be placed with improved bone anchorage.

Abstract: The aim of this study was to provide an anatomical map to assist the clinician in miniscrew placement in a safe location between dental roots. Volumetric tomographic images of 25 maxillae and 25 mandibles taken with the NewTom SystemT were examined. For each interradicular space, the mesiodistal and the buccolingual distances were measured at two, five, eight, and 11 mm from the alveolar crest. In this article, measurements distal to the canines are presented. In the maxilla, the greatest amount of mesiodistal bone was on the palatal side between the second premolar and the first molar. The least amount of bone was in the tuberosity. The greatest thickness of bone in the buccopalatal dimension was between the first and second molars, whereas the least was found in the tuberosity. In the mandible, the greatest amount of mesiodistal dimension was between first and second premolar. The least amount of bone was between the first premolar and the canine. In the buccolingual dimension, the greatest thickness was between first and second molars. The least amount of bone was between first premolar and the canine. Clinical indications for a safe application of the miniscrews are provided, as well as the ideal miniscrew features. (Angle Orthod 2006;76:191‐197.)

Abstract: The stability and predictability of orthognathic surgical procedures varies by the direction of surgical movement, the type of fixation, and the surgical technique employed, largely in that order of importance The most stable orthognathic procedure is superior repositioning of the maxilla, closely followed by mandibular advancement in patients in whom anterior facial height is maintained or increased (If facial height is decreased by upward rotation of the chin, stability is compromised) The combination of moving the maxilla upward and the mandible forward is significantly more stable when rigid internal fixation is used in the mandible Forward movement of the maxilla is reasonably stable, with or without rigid internal fixation, but mandibular setback often is not stable, and downward movement of the maxilla that creates downward rotation of the mandible is unstable For mandibular setback, the inclination of the ramus at surgery appears to be an important influence on stability It has been suggested that both interpositional synthetic hydroxyapatite grafting and simultaneous ramus osteotomy improve the stability of downward movement of the maxilla, but this has not been well documented In two-jaw Class III surgery, the stability of each jaw appears to be quite similar to that of isolated maxillary advancement or mandibular setback The least stable orthognathic procedure is transverse expansion of the maxilla Although surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion has been suggested as a more stable alternative to segmental Le Fort I osteotomy, the patterns of movement resulting from the two procedures are different, and differences in stability have not been established

Abstract: In 91 consecutive edentulous patients, 103 jaws were treated with complete fixed prostheses supported by Branemark Implants ( n = 589). As a result of fixture loss in each of two patients (two jaws), an overdenture instead of a fixed prosthesis was installed. For one patient (two jaws), data were not available after abutment connection. At the end of the seventh year, the cumulative failure rates for the remaining 99 prostheses reached 4.9% for mandibles and 10.1% for maxillae. After loading, 12 fixtures showed signs of nonintegration, but only one patient had to revert to complete dentures. Neither the fixture location nor the cantilever length revealed a significant difference in marginal bone loss around the supporting fixtures. Patients with fixture-supported fixed prostheses in both jaws showed significantly more marginal bone loss than did those with only one fixed prosthesis opposed by either natural dentition (50%) or a complete denture (50%). Component complications were limited to fixture fracture (3/564), abutment screw fracture (5/564), and gold screw fracture (7/564). The predictability of Branemark implants in the treatment of completely edentulous jaws is confirmed.