Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Critical design errors in maxillary subperiosteal implants.

L I Linkow1, R Ghalili

  • 1Department of Implant Dentistry, NYU College of Dentistry, USA.

The Journal of Oral Implantology
|May 13, 1999
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Use of a tripodal mandibular subperiosteal implant with ramus hinges for facial asymmetry.

The Journal of oral implantology·2002
Same author

Ramus hinges for excessive movements of the condyles: a new dimension in mandibular tripodal subperiosteal implants.

The Journal of oral implantology·1999
Same author

Tripodal mandibular subperiosteal implant: basic sciences, operational procedures, and clinical data.

The Journal of oral implantology·1998
Same author

Hinged tripodal subperiosteal implants for severely atrophied mandibles.

Dentistry today·1996
Same author

Root form implants for tomorrow.

The Implant Society : [periodical]·1996
Same author

Levels of osseointegration of blade-/plate-form implants.

The Journal of oral implantology·1995

Maxillary full arch subperiosteal implants offer a stable solution for severe jaw atrophy. This study highlights improved success rates with modern techniques and patient selection.

Area of Science:

  • Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
  • Dental Implantology
  • Biomaterials Engineering

Background:

  • Maxillary full arch subperiosteal implants provide support for dental prostheses.
  • Indications include advanced maxillary atrophy with specific stable bony support areas.
  • Historical data indicates lower success rates for implants placed before 1985.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To present outcomes of over 300 maxillary full arch subperiosteal implant cases.
  • To emphasize the importance of anatomical and physiological understanding for optimizing results.
  • To compare historical success rates with contemporary outcomes.

Main Methods:

  • Review of over 300 maxillary full arch subperiosteal implant cases with up to 12 years in function.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analysis of patient selection criteria based on anatomical landmarks.
  • Emphasis on the underlying anatomical and physiological principles.

    • Main Results:

    • Over 300 cases with up to 12 years in function are presented.
    • Success rates are improved compared to earlier cases placed before 1985.
    • Proper patient selection and understanding of anatomy are crucial for success.

    Conclusions:

    • Maxillary full arch subperiosteal implants are a viable option for severe maxillary atrophy.
    • Optimized results depend on a thorough understanding of anatomical and physiological factors.
    • Modern techniques and patient selection have led to improved success rates.