The maxillary posterior teeth are most
often the first to be lost in chronic periodontal disease. Not only does
periodontal disease reduce the maxillary bone height, but, upon the loss of the
maxillary posteriors, the maxillary sinus undergoes a pneumatization. This
reduces the alveolar ridge height beyond the alveolar resorption that may occur
during extraction site repair. In addition, we see cases of patients who
have lost ridge width and height wearing removable appliances they now wish to
replace. This makes the maxillary posterior a difficult area to sustain
and increase alveolar bone support for implant care. This newsletter
discusses when and how bone mass can be increased in the maxillary posterior
segments.
The three problems faced by the clincian preparing for
maxillary implants are the pneumatized sinus, the loss of alveolar ridge height
in the maxilla and loss of buccolingual width in the maxilla. Several
procedures are available to increase bone in this maxillary posterior
segment. They include vertical ridge augmentation for height increases of
the maxillary alveolus, lateral ridge augmentation and ridge splitting for
maxillary width problems, and lateral window sinus grafting and up-fracture of
the sinus floor for increasing bone volume at the sinus-alveolus
interface. A primary question is how to determine what alveolar increases
may be necessary to complete a fixed treatment regimen replacing lost posteriors
in the maxilla.
The most difficult of the procedures
mentioned above has to be vertical ridge augmentation. Vertical
augmentation is desirable when the space between the upper ridge and the lower
teeth has enlarged at the expense of the alveolar height in the maxilla.
This spacing mandates very large pontics to contact the alveolar ridge soft
tissues and is not resolved by sinus grafting, although sinus grafting may raise
the sinus floor adequately to place implants. Vertical augmentation
usually requires space making with reinforced membranes and osteoinductive
grafting materials. Vertical augmentation supplemented with other
techniques can produce successful cases.
When there is adequate height of the residual maxilla, 8-10
millimeters of bone between the sinus and the crest of the ridge but inadequate
buccolingual width, ridge splitting and/or lateral augmentation are
options. Lateral ridge augmentation is most commonly used with isolated
ridge concavities, or with ridge deficiencies that would mandate the implant be
placed too far lingually to occlude in a cusp-fossa relationship with the lower
teeth. When the ridge width is 2-3mm too narrow but well formed the ridge
splitting technique is an excellent method which allows the implants to be
placed immediately in the channel formed during the splitting process.
Osseous grafts can be used to fill the residual portions of the channel
following implant placement. The accompanying clinical series shows the
combination of ridge splitting with upfracture of the sinus floor to produce
both height and width adequate for the implant placement and retention.
Often, split thickness flaps initiated on the lingual side of the ridge crest
are used to ensure that soft tissues cover the bone altering procedures
post-surgically. Up-fracturing can be best employed when there is 5-8mm of
bone between the sinus floor and the crest of the residual maxillary
ridge. An increase of 3mm of bone height is routine for this process, but
larger increase are less predictable. Many clinicians up-fracture the
sinus by preparing an osteotomy to within 1-2mm of the sinus floor and use an
osteotome to complete the fracturing process. They then place graft
material in the prepared up-fractured osteotomy and compress the material into
the space around the uplifted sinus membrane. Implants can be placed
immediately if enough cortical plate is present on the residual maxillary ridge
to stabilize the implant. Clinical observation and animal research
indicates small tears in the Schneiderian membrane lining the sinus repair
without consequence in this technique. This method has less postoperative
swelling and discomfort than the more traditional lateral window sinus
augmentation. While only the area immediately adjacent to the implants
will generate bone, this does not seem to adversely affect implant stability or
function. In fact, pneumatization of the sinus can be seen to recur over
several years following the implant process, but does not appear to affect the
implant function or stability.
When the floor of the sinus is within 5mm of the alveolar
ridge crest, lateral window sinus elevation techniques are indicated. The
accompanying illustration shows a lateral wall sinus lifting procedure.
The sinus is located via radiographs and an entry window is prepared, generally
somewhere between the maxillary first bicuspid and the first molar region.
A window is prepared by cutting a channel into the buccal bone until it is
paper-thin. The eggshell of bone is fractured inward and upward to produce a
slight separation of the membrane from the bone at one end of the sinus
cavity. A broad, blunt instrument is used to separate the sinus lining
from the adjoining bone being especially careful to extend the lifting of the
membrane unto the septum, which may separate the sinus into compartments. The
sinus membrane must be lifted at its lateral extent in order to prevent
immediate relapse of the sinus cavity into the grafted area. The lifted
sinus cavity is filled with a bone substitute. When adequate cortical bone
exists on the maxillary ridge, some clinicians place immediate implants into the
grafts.
Like other clinical processes, the success rate of ridge
and sinus augmentation continues to improve while technical advances have
reduced the discomfort associated with this process. We hope this
explanation of the augmentation process for maxillary posterior implants helps
you in evaluating, making decisions and explaining implant procedures to your
patients.
|

|
Pre-operative
panorex. There is adequate bone height in the bicuspid region, but the
molar site is 2-3mm short of bone for 10mm implant lengths. Buccolingual
width is clinically found to be inadequate. Only slight pneumatization
of the sinus is evident and ridge height is adequate. |
|
|
Post-implant
panorex shows three implants surrounded by osseous structure. The
maxillary implant has displaced the floor of the sinus superiorly. |