Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “FACIAL BONES”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 289 records · Page 16Linked to original sources
PubMed2000

The influence of bone thickness on facial marginal bone response: stage 1 placement through stage 2 uncovering.

BACKGROUND: Various causes of facial bone loss around dental implants are reported in the literature; however, reports on the influence of residual facial bone thickness on the facial bone response (loss or gain) have not been published. This study measured changes in vertical dimension of facial bone between implant insertion and uncovering and compared these changes to facial bone thickness for more than 3,000 hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated and non-HA-coated root-form dental implants. METHODS: Subjects were predominantly white males, 18 to 80+ years of age (mean 62.9 years), who were patients at 30 Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers and two university dental clinics. Alveolar ridges ranged from normal to resorbed with intact basal bone. Following preparation of the osteotomy site, direct measurements with calipers were made of the residual facial bone thickness, approximately 0.5 mm below the crest of the bone. The distance from the top of the implants to the crest of the facial bone was also measured using periodontal probes. Implants were uncovered between 3 to 4 months in the mandible and 6 to 8 months in the maxilla after insertion. Facial bone response was the difference between the height of facial bone at Stage 1 (insertion) and Stage 2 (uncovering). RESULTS: The mean facial bone thickness after osteotomies were made was 1.7 +/- 1.13 mm. When a mean facial bone thickness of 1.8 +/- 1.41 mm or larger remained after site preparation, bone apposition was more likely to occur. The mean facial bone response for 2,685 implants was -0.7 +/- 1.70 mm. For implants integrated at uncovering, the mean bone response was -0.7 +/- 1.69 mm, and -2.8 +/- 1.57 mm for implants mobile at uncovering. Bone quality-4 had the least facial bone response, -0.5 +/- 2.11 mm. Bone responses were similar for both HA-coated and non-HA-coated implants. CONCLUSIONS: Significantly greater amounts of facial bone loss were associated with implants that failed to integrate. As the bone thickness approached 1.8 to 2 mm, bone loss decreased significantly and some evidence of bone gain was seen. There was no statistically or clinically significant difference in bone response between HA-coated and non-HA-coated implants.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1993

Complications associated with rigid internal fixation of facial bone fractures.

Rigid internal fixation is now a common method for treating fractures of the facial skeleton. However, it is a very precise technique that requires more time than intraosseous wiring. This article reports the complications associated with rigid internal fixation of facial fractures in 223 patients and compares the findings with those accompanying intraosseous wiring.

Bone Plates↗
PubMed1995

Fifteen-year statistics and observation of facial bone fracture.

During the past 15 years, we encountered 1051 facial fractures. The number of patients with facial fractures accounted for 0.76% of the over all outpatients at the ENT clinic of Osaka City University Hospital. There were 496 nasal bone fractures, 111 maxillary fractures, 167 zygomatic fractures, 122 mandibular fractures, and 130 orbital fractures. These types of fractures accounted for 47.2%, 10.6%, 15.9%, 11.6%, and 12.4% of the over or facial fractures, respectively. The ratio of men to women was nearly three to one, with 794 men and 257 women. Among nasal fractures, injury causes were ranked in the order of fighting, sports, and traffic accident. Among facial fractures, injury causes were ranked in the order of the traffic accident, fighting, and falling down.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2000

[Facial bone reconstruction. Review of particularities and procedures].

The authors report the particularities of the cranio-maxillofacial skeleton and the aims of the reconstruction procedures: osteogenesis, osteoconduction, osteoinduction. They review the various procedures, their abilities, some technical notes, their advantages and disadvantages. They analyse in order: classical bone autografts, pedicled bone flaps (arterio-osseous, fascio-osseous, myo-osseous flaps), free bone flaps, classical and pedicled periosteal transplantations. They also describe the mechanical and biological procedures of bone stimulation: bone distraction, guided bone regeneration, bone growth factors, and the biomaterials, especially coral and enosseous implants. They conclude that, in facial reconstruction, the best material is the autologous bone membranous and vascularized.

Bone Transplantation↗