China Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery ›› 2020, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (1): 17-21.doi: 10.19438/j.cjoms.2020.01.003

• Original Articles • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Evaluation of the effect of tilted implant placement in patients with insufficient bone mass in maxillary posterior region

JU Yun-meng1,2, WU Na2, NING Bo1,2, YANG Fang2, CHEN Zheng-gang2, GUO Da-wei2   

  1. 1.School of Stomatology of Qingdao University. Qingdao 266003;
    2.Department of Stomatology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital Affiliated to Qingdao University. Qingdao 266000, Shandong Province, China
  • Received:2019-08-22 Online:2020-01-20 Published:2020-03-09

Abstract: PURPOSE: To observe the clinical effect of tilted dental implants in patients with insufficient vertical bone mass in maxillary posterior region. METHODS: From January 2016 to June 2018,patients who were implanted and restored with residual bone height <6 mm in the maxillary posterior region were selected. Among them, 28 patients with titled implant (titled angle of 25°-35°) (40 implants) were recruited into group A; while 23 patients with transalveolar crest sinus floor elevation (34 implants) were recruited into group B. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to evaluate the implant survival rate after implant restoration. Panoramic X-ray or cone-beam CT (CBCT) was taken pre- and post-operatively, and the average peripheral marginal bone resorption height of the implant was measured by image analysis and measurement software (Digimizer, Belgium). The data were analyzed with SPSS 24.0 software package. The follow-up period was 3 years after surgery, complications such as loose abutment, loosening of the restoration, collapse of porcelain or defect, food impaction were recorded after implantation. RESULTS: All implants were observed for a maximum of 3 years and a minimum of 1 year. The cumulative survival rate of group A was 100%, the cumulative survival rate of group B was 97.06% (one implant was detached before restoration), and there was no significant difference between group A and group B (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the average marginal bone resorption height between group A and B (P>0.05). During the follow-up period, only three patients in group A developed horizontal food impaction, one patient had loose central screws, and no significant complications occurred in group B. CONCLUSIONS: For some patients with insufficient bone mass in maxillary posterior region, tilted implant placement has good clinical effect during the observation period of this study.

Key words: Tilted implant, Insufficient bone mass, Maxillary posterior region, Fixed repair

CLC Number: