Perio-Implant Advisory JOMI Clinical Pearls: Analyzing techniques for maxillary implant placement success

Sept. 15, 2015

JOMI Clinical Pearls is a regular column in Perio-Implant Advisory that discusses articles from The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants (JOMI)—the official journal of the Academy of Osseointegration—as reviewed by a member of the Academy’s Young Clinicians Committee. Here, Dr. José Antonio Garcia M. discusses implants with different abutment interfaces to replace anterior, maxillary single teeth; the effect of barrier membranes on the outcomes of maxillary sinus floor augmentation; and the effects of implant morphology on rotational stability during immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone.

Content Dam Diq Online Articles 2015 09 15sept17pia Jomiclinpearls Garcia Article Thumbnail

JOMIClinical Pearls is a regular column in Perio-Implant Advisorythat discusses articles from The InternationalJournal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants (JOMI)—the official journal of the Academy of Osseointegration (AO)—as reviewed by a member of theAcademy’s Young Clinicians Committee (YCC). Quintessence Publishing publishes JOMI. Today’s studies are all pulled from Volume 30, Number 3, 2015.

Today, I will tackle three different areas regarding the issues and information shared on maxillary implant placements. The first of these areas is the comparative trial of implants with different abutment interfaces to replace anterior, maxillary single teeth. The study includes 61 men and 80 women using implants that include 48 Conical Interface (CI), 49 Flat-to-flat Interface (FI), and 44 Platform Switch (PS). On all three types of implants, the preoperative study casts facilitated the surgical procedures, the augmentation procedures used protein 2 (rhBMP2), applied the flapless approach, and each implant manufacturer’s drilling protocols. Each implant was placed 3 mm apical of the planned gingival peri-implant mucosal zenith, and for provisionalization, the cases used a titanium abutment with provisional cement and without occlusal contacts. What the study shows us is that we achieve better results with immediate provisionalization when using the correct protocols. Also, CI had less marginal bone loss after one year compared with FI or PS. However, the changes in the buccal mucosal zenith position or papilla dimensions did not demonstrate big differences between the three implant designs (Tables 6 and 7).

Dr.José Antonio Garcia M. graduated from Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon in 2004 and from Instituto Dental de Implantologia in 2007. He was in general practice from 2004 until 2009 when he started his own office in Los Cabos, Mexico, where he currently sees patients. He has served as an instructor and has lectured on the topic of implants in high-risk areas. He is a member of both the Academy of Osseointegration and the American Dental Association.