Restoratively Driven Planning for Implants in the Posterior Maxilla - Part 1: Alveolar Bone Healing, Bone Assessment and Clinical Classifications

Overview

Journal Br Dent J

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2023 Oct 27

PMID 37891288

Authors

Elizabeth M King

Jonathon Schofield

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Sinus augmentation in conjunction with implant placement is widely considered to be a predictable and successful treatment option for the edentulous posterior maxilla. However, the anatomical changes of the posterior maxilla following tooth extraction (namely alveolar atrophy and pneumatisation of the maxillary sinus) creates unique challenges for implant and prosthodontic rehabilitation. A large volume of literature has been published regarding the surgical indications and treatment planning for implants in the posterior maxilla. In comparison, there is a relative paucity of literature regarding the prosthodontic challenges associated with implants placed in augmented maxillary sinuses. This article describes the scientific background of native and grafted alveolar bone healing in relation to implant rehabilitation. Furthermore, clinical classifications available to assist implant treatment planning are described.

Citing Articles

Do dental implants installed in different types of bone (I, II, III, IV) have different success rates? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rosa C, Bento V, Duarte N, Sayeg J, Santos T, Pellizzer E Saudi Dent J. 2024; 36(3):428-442.

PMID: 38525185 PMC: 10960139. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.12.007.

References

Aghaloo T, Misch C, Lin G, Iacono V, Wang H . Bone Augmentation of the Edentulous Maxilla for Implant Placement: A Systematic Review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016; 31 Suppl:s19-30. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.16suppl.g1. View

Gomez-Polo M, Ortega R, Gomez-Polo C, Martin C, Celemin A, Rio J . Does Length, Diameter, or Bone Quality Affect Primary and Secondary Stability in Self-Tapping Dental Implants?. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 74(7):1344-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.03.011. View

Cawood J, Howell R . A classification of the edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1988; 17(4):232-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0901-5027(88)80047-x. View

Allen E, Gainza C, Farthing G, Newbold D . Improved technique for localized ridge augmentation. A report of 21 cases. J Periodontol. 1985; 56(4):195-9. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1985.56.4.195. View

Piattelli M, Favero G, Scarano A, Orsini G, Piattelli A . Bone reactions to anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss) used in sinus augmentation procedures: a histologic long-term report of 20 cases in humans. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999; 14(6):835-40. View

Barone A, Orlando B, Tonelli P, Covani U . Survival rate for implants placed in the posterior maxilla with and without sinus augmentation: a comparative cohort study. J Periodontol. 2010; 82(2):219-26. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2010.100177. View

Seibert J . Reconstruction of deformed, partially edentulous ridges, using full thickness onlay grafts. Part II. Prosthetic/periodontal interrelationships. Compend Contin Educ Dent (Lawrenceville). 1983; 4(6):549-62. View

Kuroshima S, Kaku M, Ishimoto T, Sasaki M, Nakano T, Sawase T . A paradigm shift for bone quality in dentistry: A literature review. J Prosthodont Res. 2017; 61(4):353-362. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.05.006. View

Turkyilmaz I, McGlumphy E . Influence of bone density on implant stability parameters and implant success: a retrospective clinical study. BMC Oral Health. 2008; 8:32. PMC: 2614413. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-8-32. View

10.

King E, Schofield J . Restoratively driven planning for implants in the posterior maxilla - Part 2: implant planning, biomechanics and prosthodontic planning a proposed prosthodontic complexity index. Br Dent J. 2023; 235(9):695-706. PMC: 10635824. DOI: 10.1038/s41415-023-6440-2. View

11.

Fanuscu M, Vu H, Poncelet B . Implant biomechanics in grafted sinus: a finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol. 2004; 30(2):59-68. DOI: 10.1563/0.674.1. View

12.

Moy P, Medina D, Shetty V, Aghaloo T . Dental implant failure rates and associated risk factors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005; 20(4):569-77. View

13.

Wang H, Al-Shammari K . HVC ridge deficiency classification: a therapeutically oriented classification. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2002; 22(4):335-43. View

14.

Quirynen M, Naert I, van Steenberghe D . Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Brånemark system. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1992; 3(3):104-11. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030302.x. View

15.

Fanuscu M, Iida K, Caputo A, Nishimura R . Load transfer by an implant in a sinus-grafted maxillary model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003; 18(5):667-74. View

16.

Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Singer S, Mupparapu M . CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable?. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014; 44(1):20140238. PMC: 4277442. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20140238. View

17.

Graziani F, Donos N, Needleman I, Gabriele M, Tonetti M . Comparison of implant survival following sinus floor augmentation procedures with implants placed in pristine posterior maxillary bone: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004; 15(6):677-82. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01116.x. View

18.

Jensen O, SHULMAN L, Block M, Iacono V . Report of the Sinus Consensus Conference of 1996. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998; 13 Suppl:11-45. View

19.

Seibert J . Reconstruction of deformed, partially edentulous ridges, using full thickness onlay grafts. Part I. Technique and wound healing. Compend Contin Educ Dent (Lawrenceville). 1983; 4(5):437-53. View

20.

Meredith N . Assessment of implant stability as a prognostic determinant. Int J Prosthodont. 1999; 11(5):491-501. View