Journal of Dental Implants
   About JDI | Editorial | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Subscribe | Login 
Users Online: 107  Wide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 89-96

Hybrid implants in the dental rehabilitation of posterior maxilla: A prospective clinical evaluation


Department of Dental Surgery and Oral Health Sciences, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. R Arunkumar Shadamarshan
Graded Specialist (Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery), Dental Centre, Wangchuck Lo Dzong Military Hospital, Haa Dzong, Bhutan, Pin -15001
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jdi.jdi_17_21

Rights and Permissions

Context: Implant-retained prosthodontic rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla poses a unique challenge due to deficiency in bony characteristics in many cases, thereby requiring elaborate adjunctive surgical procedures to aid in implant placement. Aims: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of hybrid implants in the prosthodontic rehabilitation of edentulous posterior maxilla. Subjects and Methods: Prospective clinical evaluation of 27 patients (30 implants) rehabilitated using hybrid implants at 1 and 4 weeks after implant placement and 3, 6, and 12 months after functional loading was conducted. Statistical Analysis Used: Descriptive statistics were used for statistical analysis. Results: The average pain score on the Visual Analog Scale was 4.53 and 0.76 at the end of 1st week and 4 weeks. Four implants (13.33%) were found unstable by 4 weeks. Two implants (6.67%) had exposure by 12 months. Less than 1 mm of mobility was seen in one implant (3.33%) by 3 months, four implants (13.33%) by 6 months, and five implants (16.67%) by 12 months. One implant (3.33%) developed mobility up to 2 mm by 12 months. Seven implants (23.33%) showed a probing depth of ≥5 mm but none more than 6 mm. Gingival recession of 2 and 3 mm was seen in two implants (6.67%) and one implant (3.33%), respectively, at the end of 12 months. The average bone loss was 0.17, 0.31, and 0.46 mm by 3, 6, and 12 months. The average rate of bone loss was 0.02 mm per month. Conclusions: Hybrid implant is an excellent alternative in patients with inadequate bone in the posterior maxilla precluding the requirement of maxillary sinus lift and grafting.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed15961    
    Printed80    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded177    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal