Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 4, 2026
Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
Rehabilitation of the maxillary arch after bone graft using immediate loading with implant-supported fixed
Rogério Margonar1, Thallita P Queiroz, Élcio Marcantonio
1From the *Department of Health Sciences, Implantology Post Graduation Course, Dental School, University Center of Araraquara-UNIARA, São Paulo; †Department of Surgery and Integrated Clinic, Araçatuba Dental School, UNESP-Universidade Estadual Paulista, São Paulo; ‡Department of Oral Surgery, Dental School, University of Cuiabá-UNIC, Mato Grosso; and §Dental School, University of Cuiabá-UNIC, Mato Grosso, Brazil.
Abstract:
Moderate and controlled loading environments support or enhance osteogenesis, and, consequently, a high degree of bone-to-implant contact can be acquired. This is because when osteoprogenitor cells are exposed to limited physical deformation, their differentiation into osteoblasts is enhanced. Then, some range of microstrain is considered advantageous for bone ingrowth and osseointegration. The primary stability has been considered one of the main clinical means of controlling micromotion between the implant and the forming interfacial tissue, which helps to establish the proper mechanical environment for osteogenesis. Based on the biological aspects of immediate loading (IL), the objective of this study is to present a clinical case of maxillary arch rehabilitation using immediate loading with implant-supported fixed restoration after bone graft. Ten dental implants were placed in the maxilla 6 months after the autogenous bone graft, removed from the mandible (bilateral oblique line and chin), followed by the installation of an immediate-load fixed cross-arch implant-supported restoration because primary stability was reached for 8 implants. In addition, instructions about masticatory function and how it is related to interfacial micromotion were addressed and emphasized to the patient. The reasons for the IL were further avoidance of an interim healing phase, a potential reduction in the number of clinical interventions for the patient, and aesthetic reasons. After monitoring the rehabilitation for 8 years, the authors can conclude that maxillary IL can be performed followed by a well-established treatment planning based on computed tomography, providing immediate esthetics and function to the patient even when autogenous bone graft was previously performed in the maxilla.
