Choose of Dental and Zygomatic Implants in Maxillary Obturators

Yıl 2009, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 1, 295 - 299, 01.04.2009

Fatih Mehmet Korkmaz Mustafa Kocacıklı Turan Korkmaz

Öz

Maxillary defects may result from different reasons. The different reconstructive techniques have specific indications and advantages depending on the ablative defect, the medical status of the patient, and the patient’s prognosis. The maxillary obturator has a long history of effectively managing the functional, cosmetic, and psychological problems associated with a maxillectomy defect. In dentate maxillary defects, it is very difficult to achieve retention and stability by conventional techniques. Since the advent of osseointegration, the combination of implants and prosthetic obturators has proven to be beneficial, especially in the rehabilitation of the edentulous maxillectomy patient . Owing to decreased residual bone following maxillectomy, implant placement for supporting prosthesis has also been performed in more remote sites, such as the zygomatic bone. The zygoma implant is a product of the remote bone anchorage concept and is originally designed for reconstruction of the atrophic edentulous maxilla. Zygomatic implants have also been used to establish retention and support for a maxillary prosthesis after maxillectomy

Anahtar Kelimeler

Maxillary defect, obturator, dental implant, zygomatic implant

Maksiller Obturatörlerde Dental ve Zigomatik İmplant Seçimi

Öz

Maksiller defektler çeşitli sebeplerle meydana gelebilir. Hastanın medikal durumuna, prognozuna ve defektin büyüklüğüne bağlı olarak değişik tedavi tekniklerinin avantaj ve dezavantajları vardır. Obturatörler maksiller defektli hastaların fonksiyonel, kozmetik ve psikolojik problemlerini çözmede uzun yıllardır etkili bir şekilde kullanılmaktadır. Dişsiz maksiller defektlerde geleneksel yöntemlerle tutuculuk ve stabilite elde etmek çok zordur. Osseointegrasyonun varlığı ile implantların obturatörlerle beraber kullanılması, özellikle dişsiz maksiller defektlerde çok büyük faydalar sağlamıştır. Maksillektomiden sonra kalan maksiller kemik miktarı implant yerleştirilmesi için yetersiz olduğundan proteze tutuculuk sağlamak amacıyla zigomatik kemik gibi daha uzak bölgelere implant yerleştirilir. Zigomatik implant uzak kemik desteği fikrinin bir ürünüdür ve ilk olarak atrofik dişsiz maksillanın tedavisi için tasarlanmıştır. Zigomatik implantlar, ayrıca maksillektomi sonrası yapılan obturatörün retansiyon ve desteğini sağlamak amacıyla kullanılırlar

Anahtar Kelimeler

Maksiller defekt, obturatör, dental implant, zigomatik implant

Kaynakça

• 1. Yaluğ S, Nalbant L. Bir bukkal uzantılı obturatör yapımı. CÜ Dişhek Fak Derg. 1(2): 78-80, 1998.
• 2. Beumer T, Curtis AT, Firetell DN. Maxillofacial rehabilitalion prosthodontic and surgical consideration. St. Louis: The C.V. Mosby Co, 1979.
• 3. Çötert S. Çene Yüz Protezleri. İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Yayınları No: 19, 2003.
• 4. Keskin H, Özdemir T. Çene Yüz Protezleri, İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1995.
• 5. Muğan N. Çene-Yüz Protezi. İstanbul: Gençlik Basımevi, 1979.
• 6. Schmidt BL, Pogrel MA, Young CW, Sharma A: Reconstruction of extensive maxillary defects using zygomaticus implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 62(2): 82-89, 2004.
• 7. Parel SM, Branemark PI, Ohrnell LO, Svensson B: Remote implant anchorage for the rehabilitation of maxillary defects. J Prosthet Dent. 86: 377-81, 2001.
• 8. Taylor TD. Clinical Maxillofacial Prosthetics. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc, 2000.
• 9. King GE, Gay WD. Application of various removable partial denture design concepts to a maxillary obturator prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 41(3): 316-318, 1979.
• 10. Firtell DN, Grisius RJ. Retention of obturator-removable partial dentures: a comparison of buccal and lingual retention. J Prosthet Dent. 43: 212-7, 1980.
• 11. Mericske-Stern R. Treatment outcomes with implant-supported overdentures: Clinical considerations. J Prosthet Dent. 79(1): 66-73, 1998. Review.
• 12. Malevez C, Abarca M, Durdu F, Daelemans P. Clinical outcome of 103 consecutive zygomatic implants: a 6–48 months follow-up study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 15: 18- 22, 2004.
• 13. Fukuda M, Takahashi T, Nagai H, Iino M. Implant-supported edentulous maxillary obturators with milled bar attachments after maxillectomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 62: 799-805, 2004.
• 14. Kreissl ME, Heydecke G, Metzger MC, Schoen R. Zygoma implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation after partial maxillectomy using surgical navigation: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 97(3): 121-8, 2007 Mar.
• 15. Sipahi C. İmplant destekli çene-yüz protezlerinde retansiyon prensipleri. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi. 48: 119-124, 2006.
• 16. Parel MS, Tjellström A. The United States and Swedish experience with osseointegration and facial prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 6: 75-79, 1991.
• 17. Hobkirk AN, Watson MR, Searson JJL, Zarb AG. İntroducing Dental İmplants. Toronto: Churchill Livingstone, 2003.
• 18. Darle C: Branemark System Zygoma Fixture, A unique solution for rehabilitation of the severely resorbed maxilla; The Zygoma Option. 2nd edn. Göteborg-Sweden: Nobel Biocare AB, 2000.
• 19. Galán Gil S, Peñarrocha Diago M, Balaguer Martínez J, Marti Bowen E. Rehabilitation of severely resorbed maxillae with zygomatic implants: an update. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 12(3): 216-20, 2007 May 1.
• 20. Nelson K, Heberer S, Glatzer C. Survival analysis and clinical evaluation of implant-retained prostheses in oral cancer resection patients over a mean follow-up period of 10 years. J Prosthet Dent . 98(5): 405-10, 2007 Nov
• 21. Esposito M, Worthington HV, Coulthard P. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely deficient edentulous maxilla. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 19(4): CD004151. 2005 Oct. Review.
• 22. Malevez C, Daelemans P, Adriaenssens P, Durdu F. Use of zygomatic implants to deal with resorbed posterior maxillae. Periodontol 2000. 33: 82-9, 2003.
• 23. Bedrossian E, Stumpel LJ 3rd. Immediate stabilization at stage II of zygomatic implants: rationale and technique. J Prosthet Dent . 86(1): 10-4, 2001.
• 24. Branemark PI. Surgery and fixture installation. Zygomaticus Fixture Clinical Procedures. Göteborg-Sweden: NobelBiocare AB, 1998.
• 25. Tamura H, Sasaki K, Watahiki R. Primary insertion of implants in the zygomatic bone following subtotal maxillectomy. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 41: 21-4, 2000.
• 26. Eser E, Wagner W. Dental implants following radical oral cancer surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 12: 552-557, 1997.
• 27. Taylor TD, Worthington P. Osseointegrated implant rehabilitation of the previously irradiated mandible: Results of a limited trial at 3 to 7 years. J Prosthet Dent. 69: 60-69, 1993.
• 28. Krekmanov L, Kahn M, Rangert B, Lindström H.Tilting of posterior mandibular and maxillary implants for improved prosthesis support. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15(3): 405-14.
• 29. Aparicio C, Perales P, Rangert B. Tilted implants as an alternative to maxillary sinus grafting: a clinical, radiologic, and periotest study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 3(1): 39-49, 2001.
• 30. Landes CA. Zygoma implant-supported midfacial prosthetic rehabilitation: a 4-year follow-up study including assessment of quality of life. Clin Oral Implants Res. 16(3): 313-25, 2005.