Abstract
The pterygoid implant is a feasible alternative for posterior dental rehabilitation
without grafting; however, the ideal pterygoid implant placement continues to be debated.
The aim of this study was to identify effective landmarks and establish valid guidelines
to determine the ideal pterygoid implant placement. Cone beam computed tomography
(CBCT) data of 100 severely atrophied maxillae requiring implant rehabilitation, obtained
between January 2015 and December 2018, were included. The CBCT data were obtained
in DICOM format from the radiographic database and imported into Nobel Clinician software
(Nobel Biocare) for radiographic analysis. Virtual pterygoid implant placement was
successful in 67 maxillae: a 13-mm virtual implant in four maxillae (6.0%), 15-mm
in 52 maxillae (77.6%), and 18-mm in 11 maxillae (16.4%). For the virtual pterygoid
implant, the mean implant angulation± standard deviation in the anteroposterior axis
(sagittal view) was 45.08 ± 2.56° relative to the Frankfort plane. In the buccopalatal
axis (coronal view), the mean implant angulation was 64.30 ± 4.99° relative to the
Frankfort plane and the mean value for the shortest linear distance between the palatine
canal and apical tip of the virtual implant was 3.91 ± 0.62 mm. A 15-mm pterygoid
implant placed at 45° in the anteroposterior axis and 60° in the buccopalatal axis
(relative to the Frankfort plane), is generally recommended in this Chinese patient
population.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Rehabilitation of patients with severely resorbed maxillae by means of implants with or without bone grafts: a 3- to 5-year follow-up clinical report.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001; 16: 73-79
- The use of pterygomaxillary implants in the partially edentulous patient: a preliminary report.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995; 10: 89-98
- Analysis of 356 pterygomaxillary implants in edentulous arches for fixed prosthesis anchorage.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999; 14: 398-406
- The excessive loss of Brånemark fixtures in type IV bone: a 5-year analysis.J Periodontol. 1991; 62: 2-4
- Immediately loaded zygomatic implants vs conventional dental implants in augmented atrophic maxillae: 4 months post-loading results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial.Eur J Oral Implantol. 2018; 11: 11-28
- Patients’ preferences towards minimally invasive treatment alternatives for implant rehabilitation of edentulous jaws.Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014; 7: S91-S109
- Implant treatment of missing posterior dentition.in: Brånemark P.I. Albrektsson T. Zarb G.A. The Brånemark Osseointegrated Implant. Quintessence, Chicago1989: 103-115
- Bone density: its influence on implant stability after uncovering.J Oral Implantol. 2003; 29: 263-269
- Zygomatic implants placed in atrophic maxilla: an overview of current systematic reviews and meta-analysis.Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021; 43: 1-5
- Anatomical and radiological approach to pterygoid implants: a cross-sectional study of 202 cone beam computed tomography examinations.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 45: 636-640
- The pterygoid plate implant: a solution for restoring the posterior maxilla.Int J Periodontics Restor Dent. 1994; 14: 512-523
- A modified surgical protocol for placing implants in the maxillary tuberosity: clinical results at 36 months after loading with fixed partial dentures.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996; 11: 743-749
- Implants in the pterygoid region: a systematic review of the literature.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 40: 773-781
- Modified surgical protocol for placing implants in the pterygomaxillary region: clinical and radiologic study of 454 implants.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27: 1547-1553
- Anatomical study of the pterygomaxillary area for implant placement: cone beam computed tomographic scanning in 100 patients.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29: 1049-1052
- Third molar agenesis and craniofacial morphology.Angle Orthod. 2009; 79: 473-478
- Computed tomography and anatomical measurements of critical sites for endosseous implants in the pterygomaxillary region: a cadaveric study.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017; 46: 798-804
- A classification of the edentulous jaws.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1988; 17: 232-236
- Accuracy of secondary maxillofacial reconstruction with prefabricated fibula grafts using 3D planning and guided reconstruction.J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016; 44: 392-399
- Brånemark system implant lengths in the pterygomaxillary region: a retrospective comparison.Implant Dent. 2013; 22: 610-612
- The effect of implant angulation and splinting on stress distribution in implant body and supporting bone: a finite element analysis.Eur J Dent. 2015; 9: 311-318
Article info
Publication history
Published online: January 27, 2023
Accepted:
January 4,
2023
Publication stage
In Press Corrected ProofIdentification
Copyright
© 2023 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
