Literature DB >> 23551587

Complications and adverse patient reactions associated with the surgical insertion and removal of palatal implants: a retrospective study.

Reto Fäh1, Marc Schätzle.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the frequency and variety of surgical complications and adverse patient reactions associated with the implantation and explantation of palatal implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The implantations and explantations of palatal implants in 146 patients who had undergone orthodontic treatment using a palatal implant for anchorage in the time period 1999-2010 were evaluated retrospectively. All complications and adverse patient reactions associated with the surgical intervention of implantation and explantation of the implant were assessed.
RESULTS: Of the 146 palatal implants reviewed, 104 implantations and 44 explantations met the inclusion criteria and their data could be extracted. Of the 104 implantations, 25 (24.0%) surgical complications and adverse patient reactions could be documented. They consisted of lack of primary stability: 7 (6.7%), prolonged pain: 7 (6.7%), secondary bleeding: 6 (5.8%), perforation of nasal floor: 2 (1.9%), necrotic mucosa anterior of the implant: 2 (1.9%) and sensory impairment of the anterior palate: 1 (1%). The respective incidents for the 44 explantations were: disturbed wound healing: 3 (6.8%), perforation of nasal floor: 1 (2.3%), secondary bleeding: 1 (2.3%) and fracture of the implant: 1 (2.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: A wide spectrum of surgical complications and adverse patient reactions after palatal implant insertion and removal was found. All complications were of minor severity and duration except after one implantation, where a prolonged hypoesthesia of the anterior palate was found. Although only a small risk of a permanent sensory impairment of the anterior palatal region remains, patients must be well informed accordingly.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  complications; human; palatal implants; skeletal anchorage; surgical

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23551587     DOI: 10.1111/clr.12152

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res        ISSN: 0905-7161            Impact factor:   5.977


  6 in total

1.  What is the best position for palatal implants? A CBCT study on bone volume in the growing maxilla.

Authors:  Darafsch Kawa; Martin Kunkel; Lothar Heuser; Britta A Jung
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Complications reported with the use of orthodontic miniscrews: A systematic review.

Authors:  Antonino Lo Giudice; Lorenzo Rustico; Miriam Longo; Giacomo Oteri; Moschos A Papadopoulos; Riccardo Nucera
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 1.372

Review 3.  Revisiting the Complications of Orthodontic Miniscrew.

Authors:  Van Mai Truong; Soyeon Kim; Jaeheon Kim; Joo Won Lee; Young-Seok Park
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2022-08-01       Impact factor: 3.246

4.  Factors influencing the removal torque of palatal implant used for orthodontic anchorage.

Authors:  Marc Andreas Schätzle; Monika Hersberger-Zurfluh; Raphael Patcas
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 2.750

5.  Temporary anchorage device usage: a survey among Swiss orthodontists.

Authors:  Goran Markic; Christos Katsaros; Nikolaos Pandis; Theodore Eliades
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 2.750

Review 6.  Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kathrin Becker; Annika Pliska; Caroline Busch; Benedict Wilmes; Michael Wolf; Dieter Drescher
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2018-10-25
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.