Hybrid implants in the dental rehabilitation of posterior maxilla: A prospective clinical evaluation

R. Krishnaprabhu, R. Shadamarshan, S. R. Roy Chowdhury
{"title":"Hybrid implants in the dental rehabilitation of posterior maxilla: A prospective clinical evaluation","authors":"R. Krishnaprabhu, R. Shadamarshan, S. R. Roy Chowdhury","doi":"10.4103/jdi.jdi_17_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: Implant-retained prosthodontic rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla poses a unique challenge due to deficiency in bony characteristics in many cases, thereby requiring elaborate adjunctive surgical procedures to aid in implant placement. Aims: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of hybrid implants in the prosthodontic rehabilitation of edentulous posterior maxilla. Subjects and Methods: Prospective clinical evaluation of 27 patients (30 implants) rehabilitated using hybrid implants at 1 and 4 weeks after implant placement and 3, 6, and 12 months after functional loading was conducted. Statistical Analysis Used: Descriptive statistics were used for statistical analysis. Results: The average pain score on the Visual Analog Scale was 4.53 and 0.76 at the end of 1st week and 4 weeks. Four implants (13.33%) were found unstable by 4 weeks. Two implants (6.67%) had exposure by 12 months. Less than 1 mm of mobility was seen in one implant (3.33%) by 3 months, four implants (13.33%) by 6 months, and five implants (16.67%) by 12 months. One implant (3.33%) developed mobility up to 2 mm by 12 months. Seven implants (23.33%) showed a probing depth of ≥5 mm but none more than 6 mm. Gingival recession of 2 and 3 mm was seen in two implants (6.67%) and one implant (3.33%), respectively, at the end of 12 months. The average bone loss was 0.17, 0.31, and 0.46 mm by 3, 6, and 12 months. The average rate of bone loss was 0.02 mm per month. Conclusions: Hybrid implant is an excellent alternative in patients with inadequate bone in the posterior maxilla precluding the requirement of maxillary sinus lift and grafting.","PeriodicalId":212982,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dental Implants","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dental Implants","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jdi.jdi_17_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Implant-retained prosthodontic rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla poses a unique challenge due to deficiency in bony characteristics in many cases, thereby requiring elaborate adjunctive surgical procedures to aid in implant placement. Aims: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of hybrid implants in the prosthodontic rehabilitation of edentulous posterior maxilla. Subjects and Methods: Prospective clinical evaluation of 27 patients (30 implants) rehabilitated using hybrid implants at 1 and 4 weeks after implant placement and 3, 6, and 12 months after functional loading was conducted. Statistical Analysis Used: Descriptive statistics were used for statistical analysis. Results: The average pain score on the Visual Analog Scale was 4.53 and 0.76 at the end of 1st week and 4 weeks. Four implants (13.33%) were found unstable by 4 weeks. Two implants (6.67%) had exposure by 12 months. Less than 1 mm of mobility was seen in one implant (3.33%) by 3 months, four implants (13.33%) by 6 months, and five implants (16.67%) by 12 months. One implant (3.33%) developed mobility up to 2 mm by 12 months. Seven implants (23.33%) showed a probing depth of ≥5 mm but none more than 6 mm. Gingival recession of 2 and 3 mm was seen in two implants (6.67%) and one implant (3.33%), respectively, at the end of 12 months. The average bone loss was 0.17, 0.31, and 0.46 mm by 3, 6, and 12 months. The average rate of bone loss was 0.02 mm per month. Conclusions: Hybrid implant is an excellent alternative in patients with inadequate bone in the posterior maxilla precluding the requirement of maxillary sinus lift and grafting.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
混合种植体在上颌骨后牙修复中的前瞻性临床评价
背景:由于许多病例的骨骼特征不足,后上颌种植体保留修复的康复提出了一个独特的挑战,因此需要复杂的辅助外科手术来帮助种植体的放置。目的:探讨复合种植体在上颌后牙无牙修复中的应用效果。研究对象和方法:对27例(30个种植体)在种植体放置后1周和4周以及功能负荷后3、6和12个月使用混合种植体康复的患者进行前瞻性临床评估。统计分析方法:采用描述性统计方法进行统计分析。结果:第1周末和第4周末,疼痛视觉模拟评分平均为4.53分和0.76分。4周时发现4个种植体不稳定(13.33%)。两个种植体(6.67%)在12个月时暴露。3个月时1个种植体(3.33%),6个月时4个种植体(13.33%),12个种植体(16.67%)活动小于1 mm。一个种植体(3.33%)在12个月时活动度达到2mm。7个(23.33%)种植体探深≥5mm,但均不超过6mm。12个月结束时,2个种植体(6.67%)和1个种植体(3.33%)的牙龈退缩2和3 mm。3个月、6个月和12个月的平均骨损失分别为0.17、0.31和0.46 mm。骨丢失的平均速率为每月0.02 mm。结论:混合种植体是后上颌骨缺损患者的理想选择,可以避免上颌窦提升和移植的需要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Piezo osteotomy with all-on-4 implants to enable a full-arch rehabilitation A comparative evaluation of bite pressure between single implant prosthesis and natural teeth: An in-vivo study Two implant-retained mandibular overdenture using locator attachment – A clinical report Systemic medications and implant success: Is there a link? Part three: The effects of antiresorptive and anti-angiogenic agents on the outcome of implant therapy Gender-based predilection for the microbial load of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans present in anterior versus posterior implant sites: A preliminary observational study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1