An Anatomical Study of Maxillary-Zygomatic Complex Using Three-Dimensional Computerized Tomography-Based Zygomatic Implantation

Abstract

Objective To obtain anatomical data of maxillary-zygomatic complex based on simulating the zygomatic implantation using cadaver heads and three-dimensional computerized tomography (3D-CT). Methods Simulating zygomatic implantation was performed using seven cadaver heads and 3D-CT images from forty-eight adults. After measuring the maxillary-zygomatic complex, we analyzed the position between the implantation path and the maxillary sinus cavity as well as the distance between the implantation path and the zygomatic nerve. Results The distance from the starting point to the endpoint of the implant was 56.85 ± 5.35 mm in cadaver heads and 58.15 ± 7.37 mm in 3D-CT images. For the most common implantation path (80.20%), the implant went through the maxillary sinus cavity completely. The projecting points of the implant axis (IA) on the surface of zygoma were mainly located in the region of frontal process of zygomatic bone close to the lateral orbital wall. The distances between IA and zygomatic nerve in 53 sides were shorter than 2 mm. Conclusion The simulating zygomatic implantation on cadaver skulls and 3D-CT imaging provided useful anatomical data of the maxillary-zygomatic complex. It is necessary to take care to avoid the zygomatic nerve injury during implantation, because it frequently appears on the route of implantation.

Three-Dimensional Radiographic Evaluation of the Malar Bone Engagement Available for Ideal Zygomatic Implant Placement

“…Similar values have been reported in other studies. Uchida et al [ 21 ] and Xu et al [ 25 ] reported average lengths of 50.2 ± 4.13 mm (range 44.3–54.3 mm) and 58.15 ± 7.50 mm (range 36.46–72.35 mm), respectively. If anterior emergence was contemplated at the level of the canines/first premolars, the implant length required to attain the external cortical area of malar bone was 58.32 ± 7.44 mm.…”

The Morpho-Functional Three-Dimensional Analysis for Zygomatic Implants: A Clinical Tool With Surgical Implications

“…Recently, Tzerbos et al, 15 reported that some complications may be associated with limited intraoperative visibility, as well as the complexity of anatomical structures, which can lead to a more demanding surgery. Similarly, Xu et al, 16 noted that traditional methods for measuring anatomical variables are not adequate, due to the difficulty in obtaining structural details of the underlying tissues. They stressed on the importance of collecting all possible information to determine the best route of implant insertion that should be considered to avoid injuries to the eyeball, frontal wall of the maxillary sinus, or infratemporal fossa.…”

3D-cinematic rendering for dental and maxillofacial imaging

“…Cone beam CT imaging was performed on a Morita Accuitomo Scanner (J. Morita, Accuitomo 170, Kyoto, Japan) with the following imaging parameters: Case 2: image acquisition voxel size 0.080 × 0.080 × 0.080 mm 3 , reconstructed slice thickness 0.960 mm, slice interval 0.480. Case 4: image acquisition voxel size 0.250 × 0.250 × 0.250 mm 3 , reconstructed slice thickness 1.0 mm, slice interval 0.5. CBCT images were visualized, using the OnDemand 3DApp Software (CyberMed, Seoul, Korea).…”

“…Currently, the conventional volume rendering technique (VRT) is the most common method used in imaging with well-known benefits for the detection, interpretation, diagnosis, and for treatment planning of dentomaxillofacial lesions. [1][2][3] Cinematic rendering (CR) is a relative recently introduced postprocessing technique, which is based on an advanced 3D algorithm. It allows for a more photorealistic visualization of structures and lesions compared to standard VRT postprocessing.…”