Frequency of adequate mesiodistal space and faciolingual alveolar width for implant placement at anterior tooth positions

Wilson, James P.; Johnson, Thomas M.

doi:10.1016/j.adaj.2019.05.003

Cited by 20 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, the average implant distance to the adjacent tooth/implant increased in more posterior regions. The average values were below the recommended distance 6,13 in the maxillary lateral incisor region (considering the implant-tooth relationship) and in the region of the central incisors to maxillary premolars (considering the implant-implant relationship). Such positioning errors can lead to hypersensitivity and discomfort while eating, 14 as well as inducing implant thread exposure or horizontal bone loss, 5,15 thereby influencing the aesthetic outcome of oral rehabilitation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…5,7 These results can be attributed to the mesiodistal space available for the accommodation of dental implants, which in many cases is insufficient in this region. 13 Wide variation was found in the prevalence of implant thread exposure depending on the region evaluated (7.8% to 66.7% -in the anterior mandible). Silva et al 7 found that thread exposure was the most common type of positioning error (37.5%), occurring most commonly in the anterior maxilla.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Positioning errors of dental implants and their associations with adjacent structures and anatomical variations: A CBCT-based study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Positioning errors of dental implants and their associations with adjacent structures and anatomical variations: A CBCT-based study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Fundamentally, the clinician's choices in such a situation are to avoid implant therapy, to accept restorative compromises, or to modify the site. A minimum implant‐to‐tooth distance of 1.5 mm has been suggested 1,2 . However, at least 2‐mm implant‐to‐tooth distance may be preferable, particularly when the vertical position of the implant platform is deep 1,2 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A minimum implant‐to‐tooth distance of 1.5 mm has been suggested 1,2 . However, at least 2‐mm implant‐to‐tooth distance may be preferable, particularly when the vertical position of the implant platform is deep 1,2 . Absolute mesiodistal space deficiency appears particularly common at mandibular incisor and maxillary lateral incisor sites, 1 and in the esthetic zone, the consequences of placing an implant without requisite space are considerable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Utilizing the Regional Acceleratory Phenomenon and Dental Implant Anchorage for Distalization and Intrusion of a Mesially Tipped Mandibular Molar: A Case Report

Vargas

Bruin

Stewart

et al. 2020

Clin Adv Periodontics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Introduction of a surgical insult in conjunction with orthodontic therapy has been shown to accelerate treatment in minor tooth movement and comprehensive orthodontic cases by induction of the regional acceleratory phenomenon (RAP). When applying this concept to a molar tipped into an adjacent edentulous site, a dental implant can be planned to anchor the movement. Case Presentation A generally and periodontally healthy 25‐year‐old patient presented missing tooth #19, with tooth #18 mesially tipped into the first molar crown space. A dental implant was placed in the #19 position. Following osseointegration, the implant anchored orthodontic movement of the adjacent tooth, which was initiated in conjunction with third molar extraction. Conclusion Favorable biomechanics for molar uprighting can be achieved using an osseointegrated implant and a customized orthodontic device. The presented technique facilitates implant site development without delaying placement of the fixture and simplifies fabrication of a harmonious and anatomic implant‐supported restoration. Induction of the RAP may hasten treatment completion.

show abstract

“…8 Bone volume and adequate interdental space are particularly crucial requirements for dental implant placement, and multiple authors regard that a dental implant should be inserted no closer than 1.5 mm to a neighboring tooth. [9][10][11] Therefore, NDIs have been proposed to address the dilemma of implant placement to achieve suitable esthetics in cases of insufficient bone volume and limited interdental space. Even for NDIs, although, it may occur that bone volume or contour is not ideal where bone augmentation is needed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk factors and reoperative survival rate of failed narrow‐diameter implants in the maxillary anterior region

Yang

Chen

Gao

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Narrow‐diameter implants (NDIs) have been proposed to address the dilemma of implant installation in cases of insufficient bone volume. However, the potential risk factors of failed NDIs, and whether reimplants with reliable efficacy are still controversial. Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the survival/success rate of NDIs in the maxillary anterior region and that of reimplants at the same site, as well as to explore the potential risk factors of original and replaced implants. Materials and Methods From January 2015 to April 2019, patients receiving NDIs in the anterior maxilla were enrolled in the present study. Multiple variables were assessed to exploit the risk factor of failed NDIs, including age, sex, implant sites, length, surface characteristics, and healing abutment designs. The relationship between bone augmentation and the number of missing teeth was assessed. For failed NDIs, the reasons for NDIs removal and marginal bone loss (MBL) were analyzed. The details and outcomes of reimplants were evaluated. Results Cumulative survival rates (CSRs) and success rates of 1095 NDIs installed in 835 patients were 96.99% and 96.51%, respectively. In total, 33 of these NDIs failed. TiUnite (TU) surface was a risk factor and it affected the success rate (92.56%) and CSR (92.4%) of NDIs (P < .001). The single NDIs with bone augmentation have lower failure rate. The average MBL for 33 failed NDIs was 1.92 ± 1.91 mm. Additionally, 22 patients with 23 NDIs accepted reimplantation of previously failed NDIs, and the success rate of reimplants was 95.65%. Conclusions Surface characteristic (TU surface) was a risk factor for failure of NDIs in the maxillary anterior region. Bone augmentation simultaneously performed during NDIs implantation was favorable for a single missing tooth. As an alternative plan, the reimplantation of failed NDIs was reliable and stable after successful bone reconstruction.

show abstract

Frequency of adequate mesiodistal space and faciolingual alveolar width for implant placement at anterior tooth positions

Cited by 20 publications

References 32 publications

Positioning errors of dental implants and their associations with adjacent structures and anatomical variations: A CBCT-based study

Positioning errors of dental implants and their associations with adjacent structures and anatomical variations: A CBCT-based study

Utilizing the Regional Acceleratory Phenomenon and Dental Implant Anchorage for Distalization and Intrusion of a Mesially Tipped Mandibular Molar: A Case Report

Risk factors and reoperative survival rate of failed narrow‐diameter implants in the maxillary anterior region

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About