The nasal lift technique for augmentation of the maxillary ridge: technical note

Camargo, Igor Batista; Oliveira, David Moraes de; Fernandes, André Vajgel; Sickels, Joseph E. Van

doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.05.009

Cited by 4 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To improve the esthetics is recommended the use of fewer number of implants, 5,32 however the biomechanical risk may increase. 4,33 The present study showed that the number and the positioning of dental implants influenced at the mechanical behavior of prosthesis and implants at a four-units upper anterior rehabilitation. Esthetically, it is important to have a certain space between two implants, since it influence on the proximal bone crest level and therefore on the soft tissue volume.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…An essential prerequisite for a predicable implantsupported rehabilitation is the adequate bone availability 3 . The buccal-lingual ridge dimension should be enough to provide approximately a 2mm-thick buccal and lingual bone walls around the implant, as well as enough mesiodistally 4 .In many clinical situations the anterior maxillary ridge is highly resorbed, making it unpractical restore with single crown implant-supported restorations 5 . Conventionally, the distance between implants (external or internal hexagon connection types) must be of at least 3mm, in order to ensure the preservation of crestal bone 6 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Implant Positions when Restoring the Maxilla: A Finite Element Analysis

Ribeiro¹,

Carvalho²,

Sotto-Maior³

et al. 2020

IJAERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The absence of four upper incisors is a complex and delicate treatment challenge. The fewer implants are placed into the arch is easier to restore esthetically. However biomechanical principles could be jeopardized. This study evaluated the biomechanical behavior on a fixed prosthesis supported by different number and position implants in the anterior maxilla. Four different models, 4 implants supporting four splinted crowns ( 4l); implants in central incisors as support and lateral incisor as cantilevered elements (CS); one implant in central and one lateral incisors as support, with a pontic and cantilevered crowns (CSLS) and implants in lateral incisors as support and central incisors as pontics (LS) were analyzed by finite element analysis (FEA). The implants received mini conical abutment and zirconia screwed prosthesis. A magnitude force of the 37.5N was applied on each palatal surface of the incisors with 45°angle to the long axis of the implants. The reduction of number of implants increased von Mises stress in all components. Lower values of von Mises stress were observed in the 4I model. In the models with two implants, the CS model showed lower von Mises stress except in framework that is in CSLS model. The study concluded that the number of implants influence in biomechanical behavior and when reduce implant number to enhance esthetically anterior rehabilitation the CS and CSLS models showed better biomechanical behavior.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Implant Positions when Restoring the Maxilla: A Finite Element Analysis

Ribeiro¹,

Carvalho²,

Sotto-Maior³

et al. 2020

IJAERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast to both, these techniques of using the anterior nasal region for access, the present study reports on NA via a transsinusoidal access (Camargo et al, 2015;Lindorf et al, 2011). It is especially in the atrophic maxilla that nasal compartment, maxillary sinus, and palate get increasingly close to each other (Chanavaz, 1990;Cordano et al, 2020;Tasoulis et al, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Together with implants placed in maxillary posterior regions, the anterior implant pillar induces the formation of a supportive zone being beneficial for full arch denture support (Camargo et al, 2015;Penarrocha-Oltra et al, 2013;Sagat et al, 2010;Tolstunov, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By using the approach via the aperture piriform, the nasal mucosa can be carefully elevated followed by nasal cavity grafting either with autogenous bone or with bone replacement material graft mixtures (Aghaloo et al, 2016;El-Ghareeb et al, 2012;Lorean et al, 2014;Lundgren et al, 1997;Rubo de Rezende et al, 2008). Apart from the reported anterior access via the piriform aperture (El-Ghareeb et al, 2012;Garg, 1997;Keller et al, 1999), two other methods such as the access via an additionally produced anterior window or the transantral access have also been described as successful NA treatment modalities (Almeida Ferreira et al, 2013;Camargo et al, 2015;Lindorf et al, 2011). However, in contrast to studies evaluating maxillary sinus augmentations (SAs), nasal cavity grafting has only been evaluated in rare instances with most studies reporting on anterior vertical augmentation performed via the piriform aperture access (El-Ghareeb et al, 2012;Garcia-Denche et al, 2014: Lorean et al, 2014Lundgren et al, 1997;Mazor et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Transsinusoidal lateral nasal floor augmentation for implant placement in the atrophic premaxilla: A within‐patient, 5‐year, prospective comparative study

Krennmair

Weinländer

Forstner

et al. 2023

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical outcome for implants placed with transsinusoidal‐lateral nasal cavity augmentation (NA) compared to implants placed in maxillary sinus augmentation (SA).Materials and MethodsIn 28 atrophic edentulous maxillary regions (14 patients bi‐maxillary), a lateral window approach was used to perform transsinusoidal‐lateral NA (TSLNA) combined with maxillary SA. After healing period of about 6 months, each patient received bimaxillary one anterior implant located in the pre‐maxilla having lateral NA and 2–3 implants in the maxillary posterior region with SA. In a prospective follow‐up evaluation, clinical implant outcome (survival/success rates) and peri‐implant health (mucositis/peri‐implantitis) were assessed and compared between implants placed in TSLNA (n = 28) and SA (n = 58).ResultsAt the year‐1, year‐3, and year‐5 evaluation, neither patient‐based nor implant‐based comparisons revealed differences for marginal bone level reduction between implants placed in TSLNA (5‐year overall: 1.11 ± 0.26 mm) and SA (5‐year overall: 1.07 ± 0.30 mm), although with a significant (p < .001) continuous reduction over the observation time. At the year‐5 evaluation, all implants (n = 86) and restorations (n = 14) were still in situ (survival 100%) and showed an implant‐based incidence of peri‐implant mucositis/peri‐implantitis of 14.3%/0% in TSLNA and 6.9%/3.4% in SA corresponding to 21.4%/0% and 28.6%/7.1% for implant‐based evaluation. In addition, the implant success rate did not differ between NA and SA at implant‐ (100%/ 98.8%) and patient‐based (100%/97.6%) evaluation.ConclusionThe findings obtained show TSLNA as an effective method for implant placement of adequate length and direction in the atrophic premaxilla providing for success rates comparable to those of implants placed in SA.

show abstract

Transalveolar nasal floor elevation and implant placement: Long term follow-up case report and description of the technique

Anitua

Anitua²,

Alkhraisat

et al. 2021

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Cases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nasal lift technique for augmentation of the maxillary ridge: technical note

Cited by 4 publications

References 4 publications

Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Implant Positions when Restoring the Maxilla: A Finite Element Analysis

Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Implant Positions when Restoring the Maxilla: A Finite Element Analysis

Transsinusoidal lateral nasal floor augmentation for implant placement in the atrophic premaxilla: A within‐patient, 5‐year, prospective comparative study

Transalveolar nasal floor elevation and implant placement: Long term follow-up case report and description of the technique

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About