Commonly Used Implant Dimensions in the Posterior Maxilla - A Retrospective Study.

Reshma Thirunavakarasu, M. Arun, R. Abhinav, Balaji Ganesh
{"title":"Commonly Used Implant Dimensions in the Posterior Maxilla - A Retrospective Study.","authors":"Reshma Thirunavakarasu, M. Arun, R. Abhinav, Balaji Ganesh","doi":"10.1615/jlongtermeffmedimplants.2021038617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Implant therapy is a treatment option to ensure prosthesis survival rate and it is also done as a fixed dental prosthesis for replacing single and multiunit gaps. Posterior maxilla often has insufficient bone quality and quantity; for this reason it makes implant placement challenging in the site. Posterior edentulous maxilla presents special challenges to implant surgeons that are unique to this region compared to other regions of the maxilla. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine the common implant dimensions used in posterior maxilla. Completed case sheets were collected from a private dental hospital software system. Case sheets were taken from June 2019 to March 2020. Data was retrieved and evaluated by two reviewers. The parameters taken were patients, age groups, gender, teeth indicated for implants (maxillary premolars and molars), implant height, and implant width. Two-hundred fifty-four implants have been placed on the posterior maxilla of which 139 were premolars and 115 were molars. There was no statistical significance between the implants placed in both males and females (p value: 0.274). Between the age groups, the highest number of implants was seen in 41-60 years (n = 146) followed by 17-40 years (n = 78) and finally > 61 years (n = 30). The p value was 0.000, which was statistically significant. Various implant sizes for posterior maxilla have been introduced due to its challenging site. Thus in our study, we can see there is a difference in sizes for premolars and molars. Implant dimensions with increased height are used in the premolars compared to the molars. Implant dimensions with increased width are used in the molars compared to the premolars. In general, implant width and implant height can range from 3.6 to 4.5 mm and implant height ranging from 9.50 to 12.00 mm.","PeriodicalId":16125,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term effects of medical implants","volume":"32 1 1","pages":"25-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of long-term effects of medical implants","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1615/jlongtermeffmedimplants.2021038617","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Implant therapy is a treatment option to ensure prosthesis survival rate and it is also done as a fixed dental prosthesis for replacing single and multiunit gaps. Posterior maxilla often has insufficient bone quality and quantity; for this reason it makes implant placement challenging in the site. Posterior edentulous maxilla presents special challenges to implant surgeons that are unique to this region compared to other regions of the maxilla. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine the common implant dimensions used in posterior maxilla. Completed case sheets were collected from a private dental hospital software system. Case sheets were taken from June 2019 to March 2020. Data was retrieved and evaluated by two reviewers. The parameters taken were patients, age groups, gender, teeth indicated for implants (maxillary premolars and molars), implant height, and implant width. Two-hundred fifty-four implants have been placed on the posterior maxilla of which 139 were premolars and 115 were molars. There was no statistical significance between the implants placed in both males and females (p value: 0.274). Between the age groups, the highest number of implants was seen in 41-60 years (n = 146) followed by 17-40 years (n = 78) and finally > 61 years (n = 30). The p value was 0.000, which was statistically significant. Various implant sizes for posterior maxilla have been introduced due to its challenging site. Thus in our study, we can see there is a difference in sizes for premolars and molars. Implant dimensions with increased height are used in the premolars compared to the molars. Implant dimensions with increased width are used in the molars compared to the premolars. In general, implant width and implant height can range from 3.6 to 4.5 mm and implant height ranging from 9.50 to 12.00 mm.
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
后上颌骨常用种植体尺寸的回顾性研究。
种植体治疗是保证义齿成活率的一种治疗选择,也可作为固定义齿替代单单元和多单元间隙。后上颌骨常骨质和骨量不足;由于这个原因,它使植入物的位置具有挑战性。与上颌骨的其他区域相比,后无牙颌对种植外科医生提出了特殊的挑战。因此,本研究的目的是确定用于后上颌骨的常见种植体尺寸。完整的病例表是从一家私立牙科医院的软件系统中收集的。病例表采集时间为2019年6月至2020年3月。数据由两名审稿人检索和评估。采集的参数包括患者、年龄、性别、种植牙(上颌前磨牙和磨牙)、种植体高度和种植体宽度。在后上颌放置了254颗种植体,其中139颗为前磨牙,115颗为臼齿。男性和女性植入物的差异无统计学意义(p值:0.274)。在不同年龄组中,种植体数量最多的是41-60岁(n = 146),其次是17-40岁(n = 78),最后是61岁(n = 30)。p值为0.000,差异有统计学意义。由于后上颌骨具有挑战性的位置,各种种植体尺寸已被引入。因此,在我们的研究中,我们可以看到前磨牙和磨牙的大小是不同的。与磨牙相比,种植体尺寸增加的高度用于前磨牙。与前磨牙相比,种植体尺寸增加了宽度,用于磨牙。一般来说,种植体的宽度和高度可在3.6至4.5毫米之间,种植体的高度可在9.50至12.00毫米之间。
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: MEDICAL IMPLANTS are being used in every organ of the human body. Ideally, medical implants must have biomechanical properties comparable to those of autogenous tissues without any adverse effects. In each anatomic site, studies of the long-term effects of medical implants must be undertaken to determine accurately the safety and performance of the implants. Today, implant surgery has become an interdisciplinary undertaking involving a number of skilled and gifted specialists. For example, successful cochlear implants will involve audiologists, audiological physicians, speech and language therapists, otolaryngologists, nurses, neuro-otologists, teachers of the deaf, hearing therapists, cochlear implant manufacturers, and others involved with hearing-impaired and deaf individuals.
期刊最新文献
All-Polyethylene Tibias Equal to Metal-Backed Tibias in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clinical Experience of Dissolvable Calcium Sulfate (Stimulan) Carrier for Antibiotic Delivery in Orthopedic Surgery: A Study of 143 Patients. Do Cementless, Collared Stems Prevent Aseptic Loosening, Subsidence, and Periprosthetic Fracture in Total Hip Arthroplasty? Efficacy of a Surgical versus a Nonsurgical Approach in the Treatment of Peri-Implant Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Evaluation of Edentulous Maxillary and Mandibular Full Arch Implant Supported Rehabilitation Using the All-on-Four Treatment Concept: An 8-Year Follow-Up Retrospective 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