Placement of Brånemark implants in the maxillary tuber region: anatomical considerations, surgical technique and long-term results.
BACKGROUND
Fixture placement in the tuber area is one way to overcome the problem of insufficient bone volume for routine implant surgery in the posterior maxilla due to severe resorption of jawbone and an extensive enlargement of the maxillary sinus. However, little is known about the long-term results.


OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the survival rate and marginal bone conditions at fixtures placed in the tuber region of the maxilla.


METHODS
Twenty-one patients previously treated with at least one implant in the tuber region of the maxilla were included in this retrospective analysis. A total of 23 standard Brånemark System fixtures with a turned surface had been surgically placed in the tuber regions and 71 additional implants in adjacent areas to support fixed dental bridges. All implants were allowed to heal for 6-8 months before abutment connection and following prosthetic treatment. The patients were radiographed after 1-12 years for evaluation of marginal bone levels. In addition, the relation between the apex of the fixture in the tuberosity area and the posterior border of the maxilla was measured.


RESULTS
Twenty of the 21 patients representing 22 tuber and 64 additional implants were radiographically evaluated. No implants in the tuber areas were lost during the follow-up whereas two fixtures in the anterior region had to be removed, one before loading and the other after 4 years of loading not interfering with the prosthesis stability. The mean marginal bone level at tuber implants was situated on average 1.6 mm (SD 1.1, n=22) from the abutment-fixture junction, whilst the other implants showed an average bone level of 1.9 mm (SD 0.8, n=64). The results were similar when comparing partially and totally edentulous patients.


CONCLUSIONS
The present retrospective study shows good clinical outcome with standard Brånemark fixtures placed in the tuber region of the posterior maxilla using a two-stage procedure. In appropriate cases where bone of adequate volume and density is available, our data indicate that the technique can be used as an alternative to more extensive surgery and especially to the sinus lift procedure. However, prospective comparative studies are needed in order to evaluate the efficacy of the described technique for this purpose.
Ridell
Arne
A
arne.ridell@telia.com
Gröndahl
Kerstin
K
Sennerby
Lars
L
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D016301:Alveolar Bone Loss / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D003758:Dental Implantation, Endosseous / Q000379:methods*; D015921:Dental Implants; D017267:Dental Prosthesis Design; D019094:Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; D003830:Denture, Partial, Fixed; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D007575:Jaw, Edentulous / Q000534:rehabilitation; D008297:Male; D008437:Maxilla / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D008875:Middle Aged; D011862:Radiography, Panoramic; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013701:Temporal Bone; D016896:Treatment Outcome
D015921:Dental Implants