DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Beltrão, G.
Right arrow Articles by Finco, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Beltrão, G.
Right arrow Articles by Finco, N.
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (2007) 36, 45-50
© 2007 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/dmfr/50594185

TECHNICAL REPORT

Lateral cephalometric radiograph for the planning of maxillary implant reconstruction

GC Beltrão*,1, AT de Abreu2, RG Beltrão3 and NF Finco4

1 Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; 2 Sociedade Regional de Ensino e Saúde–Sobracursos, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; 3 School of Dentistry, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; 4 Faculdade São Leopoldo Mandic, Campinas, SP, Brazil

*Correspondence to: Dr Gilson Correia Beltrão, Rua General Vittorino, No. 330/Sala 803–Centro, CEP 90020-170 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; Email: disbeltrao{at}uol.com.br

Received 31 March 2005; revised 17 January 2006; accepted 1 February 2006

Objective: To present a simple and objective method for the planning of maxillary implant reconstruction with autogenous bone graft in maxilla atrophy.

Methods: Lateral cephalometric radiographs were performed with a metallic marker placed inside an acrylic-coated model, followed by cephalometric studies, to predict the most adequate grafting method for maxillary reconstruction in 13 edentulous patients (2 males and 11 females) whose age ranged from 27 to 47 years (mean age 37.9 years).

Results: It was possible to predict the type of maxillary reconstruction in all patients. Onlay graft was used in 12 patients. One patient was submitted to LeFort I reconstruction with interpositional graft. After 8 months, the patients received a total of 95 standard implants. The success rate was 94.7% with loss of five implants. Rehabilitation was performed with protocol-type prostheses. All patients have been followed for more than 18 months since osseointegration.

Conclusions: This simple and objective method provided a useful contribution to maxillary reconstruction, and to the functional and aesthetic rehabilitation of the patients.

Keywords: diagnosis/methods; maxillary ridge augmentation; graft/bone; implants/dental; radiograph/technology/radiologic






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 2007 by the British Institute of Radiology.