Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

O Bahat

Publications and source records attributed to O Bahat.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

Efficacy of implant placement after bone grafting for three-dimensional reconstruction of the posterior jaw.

A series of 21 men and 41 women received grafts resulting in mean faciolingual augmentation of 5.1 mm and mean vertical augmentation of 3.9 mm. In most patients, bone was obtained from the iliac crest. At the time of implant placement, the bone at the site was restored anatomically to type B in 50 patients and to type C in 12. The patients received from one to ten posterior implants, which were placed simultaneously with (n = 5) or approximately 6 months after grafting. All of the implants were loaded, with the follow-up ranging from 12 to 96 months (mean 37.3 months). Ceramometal restorations were ultimately used in all patients. Five patients suffered partial graft loss at a total of 21 implants, of which five (24%) failed. The total failure rate for implants placed in patients who received sinus + veneer grafts was 4% (9/222). In patients who received sinus and J grafts, the final implant failure rate was 2%. All implants placed in anteroposterior J grafts and mandibular grafts were successful. Overall, including replacement implants, the failure rate was 7% (23/329). Posterior implants can be placed after graft reconstruction with a success rate similar to that obtained without grafting, thereby improving the function and esthetic outcome.

Adult↗

Implant placement in three-dimensional grafts in the anterior jaw.

A series of 12 men and 13 women ranging in age from 24 to 71 years underwent two- or three-dimensional reconstruction of type C, D, or E ridges and placement of anterior implants. The mean horizontal augmentation was 6.4 mm (range 2 to 17 mm), and the mean vertical augmentation was 4.22 mm (range 0 to 15 mm). The 67 implants were all loaded, with the time averaging 34.4 months for the maxillary implants and 19 months for the mandibular implants. None of the implants have been lost to date. Two patients had flap retraction within the first 2 weeks that necessitated reapproximation. One patient had total failure of a J graft of iliac crestal bone from the maxillary left central incisor to canine starting 3 weeks after placement as the result of infection. The graft was removed at 6 weeks, and no implants were placed. Two patients suffered partial anterior graft loss, but their implants were successful in location and angulation. Implants and grafts can be combined with acceptable rates of complications and failure.

Adult↗

Complications of grafting in the atrophic edentulous or partially edentulous jaw.

Complications of ridge reconstruction can delay healing or even cause total failure of the procedure, making implant placement impossible. Most intraoperative complications, such as insufficient material for a graft or inadequate range of a soft tissue flap, are the result of poor treatment planning or execution. Postoperative infection is usually associated with onlay, veneer, and J grafts and dehiscence. Resorption of the graft can range from minor (exposure of the heads of the fixation screws) to total. Retraction of a soft tissue flap is most likely where the vestibule is shallow or the muscle pull is great. It is important to discuss the risks and consequences of all potential complications with the patient before informed consent is obtained. This measure will help prevent another complication, patient dissatisfaction with the results of surgery.

Alveolar Ridge Augmentation↗

A prospective multicenter clinical trial comparing one- and two-stage titanium screw-shaped fixtures with one-stage plasma-sprayed solid-screw fixtures.

BACKGROUND: Brånemark fixtures were originally placed in two stages, whereas titanium plasma-sprayed (TPS) solid-screws are placed in one stage. Long-term survival rates for both types of implants are excellent. Excellent survival rates have also been reported for machined screw-shaped (MS) titanium implants placed in one stage. A small number of studies have compared different implant systems and methods of implant placement. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to report clinical outcomes from a prospective longitudinal, multicenter study comparing Brånemark MS fixtures (Nobel Biocare, Yorba Linda, California, USA) placed in either one or two stages with a one-stage TPS system (ITI Straumann, Waldenburg, Switzerland). METHODS: A protocol was designed to compare implant survival rates, changes in crestal bone for titanium MS fixtures placed in one and two stages, and plasma-sprayed solid-screw fixtures placed in one surgical stage. Twenty-nine patients ranging in age from 24 to 82 years received MS fixtures in one stage. The average age for males was 58 years (n = 11), whereas the ages for females (n = 18) ranged from 15 to 84 years (average 58 years). Twenty-nine patients received machined titanium fixtures placed in two stages. There were 20 females ranging in age from 23 to 74 years (average 54 years) and 9 females ranging from 24 to 74 years (average 46 years). Twenty-five patients received TPS fixtures. There were 15 males, ranging in age from 57 to 79 (average 70), and 10 females, ranging in age from 40 to 83 years (average 62 years). Bone quality and quantity were determined from radiographs and during site preparation. Patient age, sex, location of implant placement according to jaw, length of fixtures, and number of lost fixtures were entered onto computer code sheets and continuously entered into a locked computer system. For one- and two-stage MS fixtures, nonstandardized periapical radiographs were taken at abutment connection and follow-up. Solid screws were x-rayed at prostheses connection and follow-up. The average time between implant restoration and radiographic follow-up was 15 months. The x-rays were scanned into a computer, and a program designed to measure radiographs was used to determine changes in crestal bone. Measurements for one- and two-stage MS fixtures were made from the top of the implant shoulder to the first bone to implant contact mesial and distally. Plasma-sprayed screws were measured from the bottom of the implant to the coronal most bone to implant contacts mesial and distally. Mesial-distal radiographic measurements were averaged and changes were compared using the t-test for related samples. RESULTS: This report presents data from the 2- to 3-year follow-up examinations. Twenty-nine patients received 80 one-stage MS fixtures. Between 0 and 1 year, two fixtures were lost, resulting in a 97.5% cumulative survival rate (CSR). The CSR remained unchanged through the 2- to 3-year follow-up. Twenty-eight patients received 78 two-stage MS fixtures. One implant was lost prior to loading and two were lost between 0- and 1-year follow-up, yielding a 96.2% CSR at the end of 1 year. The CSR remained unchanged through the 2- to 3-year follow-up. Twenty-three patients received 78 solid-screw plasma-sprayed screws. One implant was lost prior to loading and one between the 0- to 1-year follow-up, accounting for a 97.4% CSR at the 2- to 3-year follow-up. Changes in bone crest measurements for one-stage titanium threaded fixtures were insignificant (-0.11 mm, p = .08, maxillary; 0.07 mm, p = .42, mandibular). For two-stage MS fixtures, crestal bone loss was insignificant in maxillae (-0.16 mm, p = .92) and significant in mandibles (-0.43 mm, p = .000). There was significant bone loss for TPS implants in maxillae and mandibles (maxillae, 1.31 mm, p = .04; mandibles, 0.98 mm, p = .000). CONCLUSIONS: Cumulative survival rates for MS fixtures placed in one and two stages as well as one-stage TPS screws up to the 2- to 3-year follow-up examination were similar, indicating excellent clinical results. Radiographic measurements for changes in crestal bone loss were clinically insignificant for fixtures placed in one stage. For two-stage fixtures, maxillary changes were insignificant, whereas mandibular bone loss was statistically significant but clinically insignificant. Changes in crestal bone loss for TPS implants were statistically significant.

Adolescent↗

Interrelations of soft and hard tissues for osseointegrated implants.

Success in using osseointegrated dental implants-optimal function, esthetics, and phonetics-requires selection of the treatment modality that is optimal for the patient, protection of tissue blood supply, and adherence to a plan based on a thorough analysis of all deviations from the normal anatomy. The options for correction of hard-tissue deficiencies are mechanical modification of the implants and reconstructive surgery. Mechanical approaches reduce the time needed for reconstruction but direct the occlusal forces in unnatural directions. Surgical reconstruction is preferable. Any bone graft must be precisely fitted to the recipient site to facilitate revascularization. Restoration of hard-tissue dimensions usually requires soft-tissue coverage and augmentation. There are two basic options: (1) flaps with or without inlay or onlay grafts and (2) controlled tissue expansion. An onlay graft can help restore soft-tissue height and width. Inlay grafts have greater vascularity than onlay grafts, and the color matching is better. Controlled tissue expansion creates "like" tissue without a secondary defect, and fewer tissue transfers are needed. However, the technique is difficult, and the patient must make multiple visits to the office. For implant placement to be successful, the patient's expectations must be understood, and the benefit-to-risk ratio should be extremely high.

Alveolar Bone Loss↗

Treatment planning and site development for the implant-assisted periodontal reconstruction.

Implants can be used to recreate an edentulous dentition that is esthetic, comfortable, and functional by augmenting the total surface area of load carrying abutments. Traditionally, implants were placed in areas of the mouth where adequate amounts of bone were present. Today, clinicians are strategically planning and developing implant sites to optimize oral health. This article will describe methods of treatment planning and site development for the reconstruction of the implant-assisted periodontal restoration.

Alveolar Process↗

New challenges in treatment planning and execution for osseointegrated implant placement.

Implant-supported prostheses have become an established treatment for fully or partially edentulous patients. With restoration of function, aesthetics, and phonetics being recognized as essential for a successful implant treatment, the author of this presentation discusses several aspects that might be included in the definition of success and failure. The author also suggests subjecting all mechanical modifications of implants to the same stringent standards as surgical reconstruction before these designs are widely utilized.

Alveolar Ridge Augmentation↗

Percutaneous exposure to ethyl parathion in a feral Griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus).

A feral Griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus) was found with tremors, weakness, digit and wing flexion, and an inability to fly. A zero blood cholinesterase activity and a favorable response to treatment with pralidoxime hydrochloride indicated exposure to an anticholinergic pesticide. The bird died after 7 d, and traces of the organophosphate insecticide ethyl parathion were found in the liver and from a blue discolored skin area of the neck. Continuous exposure to ethyl parathion through dermal absorption was presumed the cause of death of the vulture.

Administration, Cutaneous↗

Reconstruction of the hard and soft tissues for optimal placement of osseointegrated implants.

Success, as it is usually defined for osseointegrated implants, may leave much to be desired in terms of esthetics, phonetics, and function. Optimal occlusal function demands that the implant-supported restoration be placed in a position that will permit the desired cusp-fossae relations with axial loading. In the partially edentulous patient, the implant-supported restoration also should blend into the arch form of the adjacent and opposing teeth. From a phonetic viewpoint, the natural contour and position of the anterior teeth must be maintained. To achieve these goals, it may be necessary to restore the hard and soft tissue anatomy vertically and horizontally and to augment or reconstruct the sinus. Depending on the circumstances, these measures may be carried out before, during, or after implant placement. In this paper, the considerations involved in diagnosis and selection of reconstructive technique are outlined.

Alveolar Bone Loss↗

Treatment planning and placement of implants in the posterior maxillae: report of 732 consecutive Nobelpharma implants.

One to nine Nobelpharma osseointegrated implants were placed in the posterior maxillae of 213 consecutive partially edentulous patients. Reconstruction was completed with a ceramic fixed partial denture with follow-up of 5 to 70 months (mean 30.3 months) after loading. Thirty-four implants in 29 patients failed; eight were replaced and one of these failed. Thus, the overall failure rate was 4.8% (35/732). The failure rate in type IV bone was only slightly higher than that in types II and III bone (5.5% versus 4.6%). The failure rate in the entire molar area was 5.3% compared with 4.5% in the premolar area (P = NS), and the failure rate of 7-mm implants was 9.5% compared with 3.8% for implants of all other lengths (P = .01).

Alveolar Process↗

Osseointegrated implants in the maxillary tuberosity: report on 45 consecutive patients.

Although the first and second molars usually are lost first in a partially edentulous maxilla, titanium implants are seldom placed more distally than at the second premolar site because of the poor quality of bone often found in the posterior maxilla. The present series encompasses 72 Brånemark implants placed in the third molar-tuberosity area with a success rate of 93% and an average follow-up after loading of 21.4 months. Moreover, two of the failed implants were in patients who had a simultaneous successful implant contralaterally. Keys to this high success rate include the meticulous identification and correction of all pathoses, modification of the drilling sequence to maximize initial implant stabilization, achievement of bicortical fixation whenever possible, gentle handling of the soft tissues and periosteum, and elimination or minimization of transmucosal occlusal loading during osseointegration and of nonaxial loading after connection.

Alveolar Process↗

Surgical planning.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Dental Implantation, Endosseous↗