Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Dental Implant Treatment (dental + implant_treatment)
Selected AbstractsA Comparative Study of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Mandibular Canals and Cross-Sectional Areas in Diagnosis prior to Dental Implant TreatmentCLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 2 2004Hideyuki Imamura DDS ABSTRACT Background: Computed tomography (CT) is effective in the diagnosis of dental implants. However, it has the disadvantage of exposing patients to high doses of x-rays, and the mandibular canals cannot be detected by CT in some clinical cases. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the detectability of the anatomic morphology of the molar region in the lower jaw (where implantation is common) by CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to compare the data, and to determine the usefulness of MRI in diagnosis prior to dental implant treatments. Materials and Methods: Eleven female subjects (average age, 59 years) who had partially edentulous mandibles (total of 19 sites) were included in the study. CT and MRI were performed with the same subjects, and the degrees of identification of the mandibular canal in the first and second molar regions were compared. Dimensional accuracy in the second molar region was also compared. Results: With CT, the canals of the first molar regions were not identified in 11 of 19 sites; however, MRI identified the canals in all 19 sites. Using the kappa index, we found that the inter- and intraobserver identification reliabilities (0.84 and 0.87, respectively) were excellent, especially for MRI. Dimensional positioning of the canal in the second molar region was almost the same with MRI as with CT. Conclusions: MRI is an alternative method in diagnosis prior to dental implant treatment in the mandibular molar region. [source] Clinical evaluation of dental implant treatmentPERIODONTOLOGY 2000, Issue 1 2004Christoph H. F. Hämmerle First page of article [source] Interventions for replacing missing teeth: bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatmentAUSTRALIAN DENTAL JOURNAL, Issue 1 2009M Esposito Background:, Dental implants require sufficient bone to be adequately stabilized. For some patients implant treatment would not be an option without bone augmentation. A variety of materials and surgical techniques are available for bone augmentation. Objectives:, General objectives: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the success, function, morbidity and patient satisfaction between different bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment. Specific objectives: (A) to test whether and when augmentation procedures are necessary; (B) to test which is the most effective augmentation technique for specific clinical indications. Trials were divided into three broad categories according to different indications for the bone augmentation techniques: (1) major vertical or horizontal bone augmentation or both; (2) implants placed in extraction sockets; (3) fenestrated implants. Search strategy:, The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were handsearched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. More than 55 implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. Last electronic search was conducted on 9 January 2008. Selection criteria:, Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of different techniques and materials for augmenting bone for implant treatment reporting the outcome of implant therapy at least to abutment connection. Data collection and analysis:, Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and odd ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient. Main results:, Seventeen RCTs out of 40 potentially eligible trials reporting the outcome of 455 patients were suitable for inclusion. Since different techniques were evaluated in different trials, no meta-analysis could be performed. Ten trials evaluated different techniques for vertical or horizontal bone augmentation or both. Four trials evaluated different techniques of bone grafting for implants placed in extraction sockets and three trials evaluated different techniques to treat bone dehiscence or fenestrations around implants. Authors' conclusions:, Major bone grafting procedures of resorbed mandibles may not be justified. Bone substitutes (Bio-Oss or Cerasorb) may replace autogenous bone for sinus lift procedures of atrophic maxillary sinuses. Various techniques can augment bone horizontally and vertically, but it is unclear which is the most efficient. It is unclear whether augmentation procedures at immediate single implants placed in fresh extraction sockets are needed, and which is the most effective augmentation procedure, however, sites treated with barrier plus Bio-Oss showed a higher position of the gingival margin when compared to sites treated with barriers alone. Non-resorbable barriers at fenestrated implants regenerated more bone than no barriers, however it remains unclear whether such bone is of benefit to the patient. It is unclear which is the most effective technique for augmenting bone around fenestrated implants. Bone morphogenetic proteins may enhance bone formation around implants grafted with Bio-Oss. Titanium may be preferable to resorbable screws to fixate onlay bone grafts. The use of particulate autogenous bone from intraoral locations, also taken with dedicated aspirators, might be associated with an increased risk of infective complications. These findings are based on few trials including few patients, sometimes having short follow up, and often being judged to be at high risk of bias. [source] Internal Sinus Manipulation (ISM) Procedure: A Technical ReportCLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 3 2007Jason M. Yamada DDS ABSTRACT Background, The sinus augmentation procedure has facilitated dental implant treatment in the posterior maxilla where there is insufficient bone for implant placement. A modified Caldwell-Luc, lateral window technique can be applied in most cases needing sinus augmentation in order to create a larger bone volume. However, treatment morbidity can be a concern, especially in the form of postoperative swelling due to surgical trauma. Vertical augmentation using osteotomes has also been selected as a choice of treatment due to less invasive surgery and less postoperative trauma. Although the osteotome technique enables the surgeon to raise the sinus membrane internally through an implant osteotomy site, the quantity and predictability of bone augmentation can be limiting due to the elasticity of the Schneiderian sinus membrane, difficulty of the membrane to separate from the floor as well as the inability to have direct tactile access to "peel" the membrane off of the floor. Purpose, The objective of this report is to present a new, minimally invasive sinus augmentation technique, called the Internal Sinus Manipulation (ISM) procedure, which has been developed to facilitate sinus floor augmentation while reducing treatment morbidity and yet have direct tactile access to raise the membrane off of the sinus floor. Surgical Technique, Access to the Schneiderian sinus membrane is achieved without perforation of the membrane through a conventional osteotomy drilling procedure alone or combined with osteotome technique, followed by reflection of the membrane utilizing special ISM instrumentation and bone graft procedure laterally and vertically through the osteotomy site. A planned implant is then placed. Conclusion, The Internal Sinus Manipulation procedure can be used as an alternative treatment modality for sinus augmentation as compared to the external lateral window technique while reducing postoperative morbidity for the patients who need implant treatment in posterior maxillary areas. [source] A Comparative Study of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Mandibular Canals and Cross-Sectional Areas in Diagnosis prior to Dental Implant TreatmentCLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 2 2004Hideyuki Imamura DDS ABSTRACT Background: Computed tomography (CT) is effective in the diagnosis of dental implants. However, it has the disadvantage of exposing patients to high doses of x-rays, and the mandibular canals cannot be detected by CT in some clinical cases. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the detectability of the anatomic morphology of the molar region in the lower jaw (where implantation is common) by CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to compare the data, and to determine the usefulness of MRI in diagnosis prior to dental implant treatments. Materials and Methods: Eleven female subjects (average age, 59 years) who had partially edentulous mandibles (total of 19 sites) were included in the study. CT and MRI were performed with the same subjects, and the degrees of identification of the mandibular canal in the first and second molar regions were compared. Dimensional accuracy in the second molar region was also compared. Results: With CT, the canals of the first molar regions were not identified in 11 of 19 sites; however, MRI identified the canals in all 19 sites. Using the kappa index, we found that the inter- and intraobserver identification reliabilities (0.84 and 0.87, respectively) were excellent, especially for MRI. Dimensional positioning of the canal in the second molar region was almost the same with MRI as with CT. Conclusions: MRI is an alternative method in diagnosis prior to dental implant treatment in the mandibular molar region. [source] Humoral immunity host factors in subjects with failing or successful titanium dental implantsJOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, Issue 12 2000Mats Kronström Abstract Background: Treatment with titanium dental implants is in general successful. However, an unknown number of implants do not integrate and are removed either by exfoliation or at the time of second stage surgery. It would be of importance to identify subjects at risk and predict early implant failure. Methods: In a retrospective study serum IgG antibody titers and avidity in sera from 40 subjects who had experienced titanium dental implant treatments with non-osseo-integration as the outcome (NOTI) and in sera from 40 age and gender matched control subjects who had received successful titanium dental implants (SOTI) were studied. Serum IgG titers to whole cell Actinomyces viscosus, Bacteroides forsythus, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Staphylococcus aureus, and Streptococcus intermedius sonicated antigen preparations were studied by ELISA. Results: Serum IgG antibody titers to S. aureus were significantly higher in subjects with SOTI than in NOTI (p<0.001) suggesting that higher titers indicate protection against implant failure as a result of S. aureus infection. Statistically significant higher serum IgG antibody avidity to P. gingivalis and B. forsythus were found in subjects with SOTI than in subjects with NOTI (p<0.01 and p<0.001, respectively). Statistical analysis failed to demonstrate antibody titer or avidity differences to the other pathogens studied. The likelihood that SOTI was associated with a high OD reading for S. aureus was 13.1:1 (p<0.001). Whether subjects were edentulous or not, or if they had lost teeth because of periodontitis or caries did not seem to matter. Conclusion: Serum IgG antibodies relative to B. forsythus, P. gingivalis and S. aureus may be associated with the outcome of implant procedures and explain why early implant failures occur. [source] A Comparative Study of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Mandibular Canals and Cross-Sectional Areas in Diagnosis prior to Dental Implant TreatmentCLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 2 2004Hideyuki Imamura DDS ABSTRACT Background: Computed tomography (CT) is effective in the diagnosis of dental implants. However, it has the disadvantage of exposing patients to high doses of x-rays, and the mandibular canals cannot be detected by CT in some clinical cases. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the detectability of the anatomic morphology of the molar region in the lower jaw (where implantation is common) by CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to compare the data, and to determine the usefulness of MRI in diagnosis prior to dental implant treatments. Materials and Methods: Eleven female subjects (average age, 59 years) who had partially edentulous mandibles (total of 19 sites) were included in the study. CT and MRI were performed with the same subjects, and the degrees of identification of the mandibular canal in the first and second molar regions were compared. Dimensional accuracy in the second molar region was also compared. Results: With CT, the canals of the first molar regions were not identified in 11 of 19 sites; however, MRI identified the canals in all 19 sites. Using the kappa index, we found that the inter- and intraobserver identification reliabilities (0.84 and 0.87, respectively) were excellent, especially for MRI. Dimensional positioning of the canal in the second molar region was almost the same with MRI as with CT. Conclusions: MRI is an alternative method in diagnosis prior to dental implant treatment in the mandibular molar region. [source] | ||||||||||