Biomedical subjects

Michael Weinländer

Publications and source records attributed to Michael Weinländer.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMedDate not supplied

Provisional implants for anchoring removable interim prostheses in edentulous jaws: a clinical study.

PURPOSE: The behavior of provisional implants in edentulous maxillae/mandibles used for anchoring removable interim overdentures was followed for the time of the intended healing of the definitive implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight edentulous arches (19 maxillae, 9 mandibles) were provided with 77 provisional implants (2 to 4 in maxillae; 2 or 3 in mandibles) for anchoring removable interim prostheses (overdentures). The provisional implants were to be maintained until final restoration (6 to 9 months in the maxilla and 3 months in the mandible). The loss rate of provisional implants and handling and behavior of the anchored overdenture were monitored until the definitive prosthetic restoration was placed. RESULTS: Twenty-three (29.8%) of the 77 provisional implants were lost prematurely. The loss rate of maxillary provisional implants (21/58; 36.2%) was significantly higher than that of mandibular implants (2/19; 10.5%) (P < .01). Determination of terminal stability (by means of the Periotest) of the provisional implants showed higher stability in the mandible (+3.8 +/- 2.3) than in the maxilla (+8.6 +/- 3.9) (P < .05). In obvious contrast to mandibular interim overdentures, handling of maxillary interim overdentures was found to improve significantly during the follow-up period (P < .01). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: With both the low loss rate in the mandible and the higher loss rate seen in the maxilla, placement of provisional implants fulfills the requirements for initiating immediate prosthetic rehabilitation. The removable interim overdenture can be adequately stabilized and provides for added patient comfort and satisfaction as compared to a conventional complete denture. An important aspect of the continued use of provisional implants concerns the expectations placed in these implants by both clinician and patient, which are quite different than those for definitive implants.

Chi-Square Distribution↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Maxillary interim overdentures retained by splinted or unsplinted provisional implants.

PURPOSE: The survival rate of splinted and unsplinted provisional implants for anchoring removable interim overdentures, as well as handling and maintenance of the interim dentures, was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen edentulous maxillae were provided with 72 provisional implants for anchoring interim overdentures. For 10 patients, 40 unsplinted implants were used with conical copings to retain the provisional prostheses, while for 8 patients 32 implants had a splinted bar architecture for supporting the interim prostheses. Failure rate of provisional implants, as well as handling and behavior of the anchored interim overdentures, was followed until definitive prosthetic restoration and compared between groups. RESULTS: Eighteen (25.0%) of the 72 provisional implants were prematurely lost. The loss rate of unsplinted implants (37.5%) was significantly higher than that of splinted implants (9.3%). Patient handling and maintenance of maxillary interim overdentures during the follow-up period was found to be easier with the splinted bar-retained method than with the unsplinted prosthodontic method. CONCLUSION: Placement of provisional implants fulfilled the requirements for initiating immediate prosthetic rehabilitation and showed that removable interim overdentures can be adequately stabilized and provide added patient comfort and satisfaction. The results suggest benefits of the splinted retention modality over the unsplinted method because of advantages regarding failure rate, patient handling, and interim denture maintenance.

Aged↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Clinical outcome and prosthodontic compensation of tilted interforaminal implants for mandibular overdentures.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the sagittal inclination of interforaminal implants, the clinical implant outcome, and the necessary extent of prosthodontic compensation modalities for implant overdentures (IODs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lateral cephalometric radiographs of 62 patients, each with a mandibular IOD retained by 2 to 4 implants, were analyzed. The sagittal inclination of the longitudinal implant axis of the most anterior implant was analyzed relative to the mandibular and occlusal planes. The angle needed to compensate for the inclination of the mandibular implant to obtain Angle's class I for the prosthesis (the compensation angle) was measured and compared with respect to skeletal class. Peri-implant structures were measured using the Plaque Index and the Gingival Index. The compensation angle was correlated with the mandibular implant inclination, the degree of mandibular atrophy, and the anterior facial height. RESULTS: The most anterior mandibular implants showed a mean retroinclination of 74.3 +/- 9.3 degrees in relation to the mandibular plane; retroinclination was significantly more pronounced in skeletal class II than skeletal classes I and III (P < .05). The compensation angle (26.9 +/- 10.5 degrees) was more significant for skeletal class II than for skeletal classes I and III (P < .01). Sagittal mandibular implant inclination correlated significantly to the compensation angle (r = -0.46; P < .05), mandibular atrophy (r = 0.32; P < .05) and mandibular facial height (r = -0.45; P < .05). Implant survival rate and peri-implant parameters (bone loss, pocket-depth, Plaque and Gingival Indices) of the interforaminal implants were not shown to be influenced by implant retroinclination. Nine patients (2 skeletal class 1, 7 skeletal class II) reported phonetic problems with the IOD because of narrowing of the lingual space but described significant improvement after a median 4.7 months (range, 3 to 12 months). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Depending on skeletal class, prosthetic compensatory mechanisms will be operative in the presence of mandibular implant retroinclination for IOD. Knowledge of mandibular inclinations and the compensatory mechanisms may be an essential factor in successful prosthetic rehabilitation and may provide for a homogenous design of the bar construction and easier handling and may also reduce stress on the attachment mechanism.

Cephalometry↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or telescopic crown attachments: a 3-year prospective study.

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate implant survival, peri-implant conditions, and prosthodontic maintenance requirements for implant-supported mandibular overdentures in atrophic mandibles retained with ball or resilient telescopic crown attachments during a 3-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients with edentulous mandibles each received 2 Camlog root-form dental implants in the mandibular interforaminal (canine) region. The denture attachment system was chosen randomly; 13 patients received ball attachments and 12 patients received resilient telescopic crowns. Implant survival, implant mobility (Periotest values), and peri-implant conditions such as bone resorption, pocket depth, Plaque Index, Gingiva Index, Bleeding Index, and Calculus Index values were assessed for each implant. In addition, detailed prosthodontic maintenance was evaluated during the follow-up period and the 2 retention modalities were compared. RESULTS: There were no differences in implant survival, implant mobility (Periotest values), and peri-implant conditions between the 2 retention modalities. During the 3-year period significantly more complications/interventions for maintenance purposes were registered in the ball group (62 interventions) than in the telescopic crown group (26 interventions; P < .01). CONCLUSION: The results indicate that both ball attachments and resilient telescopic crowns used on isolated implants in the edentulous mandible are viable treatment options. Implant success and peri-implant conditions did not differ between ball attachments and telescopic crowns used as retention modalities for implant overdentures, but the frequency of technical complications was significantly higher with ball attachments than with resilient telescopic crowns.

Crowns↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Computerized tomography-assisted calculation of sinus augmentation volume.

PURPOSE: This study was intended to calculate the augmentation volume for a sinus lift procedure based on cross-sectional computerized tomography (CT) scans for 2 different augmentation heights. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on area calculations of cross-sectional CT scans, the volume of additional bone needed was calculated for 44 sinus lift procedures. The amount of bone volume needed to raise the sinus floor to heights of both 12 and 17 mm was calculated. RESULTS: To achieve a sinus floor height of 12 mm, it was necessary to increase the height by a mean of 7.2+/-2.1 mm (range, 3.0 to 10.5 mm), depending on the residual ridge height; to achieve a height of 17 mm, a mean of 12.4+/-2.0 mm (range, 8.5 to 15.5 mm) was required (P < .01). The calculated augmentation volume for an augmentation height of 12 mm was 1.7+/-.9 cm3; for an augmentation height of 17 mm, the volume required was 3.6+/-1.5 cm3. Increasing the height of the sinus lift by 5 mm, ie, from 12 mm to 17 mm augmentation height, increased the augmentation volume by 100%. A significant correlation was found between augmentation height and the calculated sinus lift augmentation volume (r = 0. 78, P < .01). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Detailed preoperative knowledge of sinus lift augmentation volume is helpful as a predictive value in deciding on a donor site for harvesting autogenous bone and on the ratio of bone to bone substitute to use. Calculation of the augmentation size can help determine the surgical approach and thus perioperative treatment and the costs of the surgery for both patients and clinicians.

Adult↗