Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 5, 2025
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
Virtual pterygoid implant planning in maxillary atrophic patients: prosthetic-driven planning and evaluation
Yuanyuan Sun1,2, Chunfeng Xu1, Ningtao Wang2
1Department of Oral Cell Biology, Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Purpose:
The study aims to use cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) to (1) define the virtual valid length of pterygoid implants in maxillary atrophic patients from the prosthetic prioritized driven position and (2) measure the implant length engaged in the pterygoid process according to the HU difference of the pterygoid maxillary junction.
Materials And Methods:
Virtual pterygoid implants were planned with CBCT of maxillary atrophic patients in the software. The entry and angulation of the implant were planned according to the prosthetic prioritized driven position in the 3D reconstruction image. The planned implant length and the valid length defined as the implant between the pterygoid maxillary junction and pterygoid fossa were recorded. The relationship between the implant and sinus cavity was also evaluated.
Results:
A total of 120 CBCT samples were enrolled and virtually planned. The mean age of the patients was 56.2 ± 13.2 years. One hundred and sixteen samples could successfully place virtual implants according to the criterion. The mean implant length and mean implant length beyond the pterygoid maxillary junction were 16.3 ± 4.2 mm (range, 11.5-18 mm) and 7.1 ± 3.3 mm (range, 1.5-11.4 mm), respectively. Ninety percent of virtually planned implants had a close relationship with the sinus cavity, and implants exhibited longer lengths when they had no relation with the sinus.
Conclusion:
From a prosthetic prioritized driven position with fixed entry and angulation, pterygoid implants achieve adequate bone anchorage length beyond the pterygoid maxillary junction. Due to the individual anatomy and the volume of the maxillary sinus, the implants presented a different positional relationship with the maxillary sinus.
