Literature DB >> 11304589

Placement of endosteal implants in the zygoma after maxillectomy: a Cadaver study using surgical navigation.

F Watzinger1, W Birkfellner, F Wanschitz, F Ziya, A Wagner, J Kremser, F Kainberger, K Huber, H Bergmann, R Ewers.   

Abstract

Endosteal implants facilitate obturator prosthesis fixation in tumor patients after maxillectomy. Previous clinical studies have shown, however, that the survival of implants placed into available bone after maxillectomy is generally poor. Nevertheless, implants positioned optimally in residual zygomatic bone provide superior stability from a biomechanical point of view. In a pilot study, the authors assessed the precision of VISIT, a computer-aided surgical navigation system dedicated to the placement of endosteal implants in the maxillofacial area. Five cadaver specimens underwent hemimaxillectomy. The cadaver head was matched to a preoperative high-resolution computed tomograph by using implanted surgical microscrews as fiducial markers. The position of a surgical drill relative to the cadaver head was determined with an optical tracking system. Implants were placed into the zygomatic arch, where maximum bone volume was available. The results were assessed using tests for localization accuracy and postoperative computed tomographic scans of the cadaver specimens. The localization accuracy of landmarks on the bony skull was 0.6 +/- 0.3 mm (average +/- SD), as determined with a 5-df pointer probe; the localization accuracy of the tip of the implant burr was 1.7 +/- 0.4 mm. The accuracy of the implant position compared with the planned position was 1.3 +/- 0.8 mm for the external perforation of the zygoma and 1.7 +/-1.3 mm for the internal perforation. Eight of 10 implants were inserted with maximal contact to surrounding bone, and two implants were located unfavorably. Reliable placement of implants in this region is difficult to achieve. The technique described in this article may be very helpful in the management of patients after maxillary resection with poor support for obturator prostheses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11304589     DOI: 10.1097/00006534-200103000-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  6 in total

Review 1.  Zygomatic implants: a critical review of the surgical techniques.

Authors:  Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic; Alexsander Ribeiro Pedrosa; Antônio Luís Neto Custódio
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2012-01-25

2.  Development of a dental handpiece angle correction device.

Authors:  Yoon Nam; Mi Young Eo; Soung Min Kim
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2018-11-26       Impact factor: 2.819

3.  Augmented Reality-Based Surgery on the Human Cadaver Using a New Generation of Optical Head-Mounted Displays: Development and Feasibility Study.

Authors:  Behrus Puladi; Mark Ooms; Martin Bellgardt; Mark Cesov; Myriam Lipprandt; Stefan Raith; Florian Peters; Stephan Christian Möhlhenrich; Andreas Prescher; Frank Hölzle; Torsten Wolfgang Kuhlen; Ali Modabber
Journal:  JMIR Serious Games       Date:  2022-04-25       Impact factor: 3.364

4.  A Novel Guided Zygomatic and Pterygoid Implant Surgery System: A Human Cadaver Study on Accuracy.

Authors:  Francesco Grecchi; Luigi V Stefanelli; Fabrizio Grivetto; Emma Grecchi; Rami Siev; Ziv Mazor; Massimo Del Fabbro; Nicola Pranno; Alessio Franchina; Vittorio Di Lucia; Francesca De Angelis; Funda Goker
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 3.390

5.  The influence of dental experience on a dental implant navigation system.

Authors:  Ting-Mao Sun; Huey-Er Lee; Ting-Hsun Lan
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 2.757

6.  Reliability and accuracy of dynamic navigation for zygomatic implant placement.

Authors:  Yiqun Wu; Baoxin Tao; Kengliang Lan; Yihan Shen; Wei Huang; Feng Wang
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 5.021

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.