Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
OCTE Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitter
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: OCTE

 

Oral & Craniofacial Tissue Engineering

Edited by Ole T. Jensen, DDS, MS

Official Journal of the Tissue Engineering Society, the Chinese Society of Oral Biomedicine, and the Japanese Society of Regenerative Medicine

ISSN (print) 2158-3722 • ISSN (online) 2158-3706

Publication:
Oral & Craniofacial Tissue Engineering
Winter 2012
Volume 2 , Issue 4

Back
Share Abstract:

Secondary Stabilization of Maxillary M-4 Treatment with Unstable Implants for Immediate Function: Biomechanical Considerations and Report of 10 Cases After 1 Year in Function

Ole T. Jensen, DDS, MS/Mark W. Adams, DDS, MS

Pages: 294-302
DOI: 10.11607/octe.0040

Purpose: Primary stability of dental implants, particularly when they are placed into immediate function in the maxilla, has been thought to be required. An alternative to primary stability is secondary stabilization, which can be obtained by a four-implant distribution pattern using 30-degree angulations for all four implants in the so-called M-4 treatment scheme in combination with cross-arch stabilization from a prosthesis. If successful, the use of these two measures brings into question whether or not primary stability is required for immediate function in the maxilla. Materials and Methods: Patients were treated with the M-4 implant scheme with immediate function, despite the instability of at least one of the four implants. Instability was defined as less than 15 Ncm of insertion torque and palpable mobility, and an average anteroposterior spread of 15 mm between each implant was sought. The patients were followed for 1 year. Results: Ten patients were treated with a total of 40 implants. Composite insertion torque of the four implants was less than 100 Ncm in half of the patients; the average anteroposterior spread was 15.6 mm. After 1 year, no implants had been lost, and bone levels around all implants were at or near operative levels. There were no failures of provisional or definitive prostheses. Conclusions: M-4 distribution of implants with an average of 15 mm of anteroposterior spread and cross-arch stabilization did not require that all four implants had high insertion torque; in fact, all mobile implants stabilized and osseointegrated under these conditions. Oral Craniofac Tissue Eng 2012;2:294302. doi: 10.11607/octe.0040

Key words: All-on-Four, anteroposterior spread, composite insertion torque, cross-arch stabilization, immediate function maxilla, insertion torque, M-4, primary stability, secondary stabilization

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2020 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog