Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume 67, Issue 11, Supplement , Pages 60-73, November 2009

Fixed Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla: Possibilities and Clinical Outcome

  • Wael Att, DDS, Dr Med Dent

      Affiliations

    • Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Albert-Ludwigs University School of Dentistry, Freiburg, Germany
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence and reprint requests to Dr Att: Department of Prosthodontics, Albert-Ludwigs University School of Dentistry, Hugstetter Strasse 55, Freiburg 79106 Germany
  • ,
  • Jasmin Bernhart, DDS, Dr Med Dent

      Affiliations

    • Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Albert-Ludwigs University School of Dentistry, Freiburg, Germany
  • ,
  • Jörg Rudolf Strub, DDS, Dr Med Dent, Dr hc, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Professor and Chair, Department of Prosthodontics, Albert-Ludwigs University School of Dentistry, Freiburg, Germany

Purpose

The aim of the present report was to describe the different treatment approaches available for fixed rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla in the presence of varying hard and soft tissue conditions and to review the clinical outcome of each treatment approach.

Materials and Methods

A review of the published data published from 1980 through 2009 was conducted using electronic databases and manual searching to identify the treatment possibilities for the fixed rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla and report their clinical outcomes. The search terms used, in simple or multiple conjunctions, were “fixed rehabilitation,” “implants,” “edentulous,” “fixed dental prosthesis,” “implant-supported,” and “maxilla.”

Results

Several treatment modalities were identified for the fixed rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla, with and without bone augmentation procedures. Regular, tilted, and zygoma implants were identified for treatment modalities that do not require bone augmentation. Sinus floor elevation with the lateral window technique or Le Fort I osteotomy with interpositional bone grafts was identified as a treatment possibility that required bone augmentation procedures. The database initially yielded 230 titles. Of the 230 studies, 42 were finally selected. Although all studies reported the survival rates of the implants, only 20 provided information about the prosthetic outcome. Because of the limited number of studies, at least for the specific treatment modalities, and the heterogeneity in the design of the different studies identified, it was not possible to perform a statistical analysis of the data. Except for regular implants placed in native bone, no sufficient long-term clinical studies were found for the other procedures.

Conclusions

Except for regular implants placed in nonaugmented native bone, the published data provide insufficient evidence about the outcome of other procedures. Until long-term data are available, such procedures should not be considered reliable treatment modalities.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Drs Att, Bernhart, and Strub state no financial arrangement or affiliation with a corporate organization or a manufacturer of a product discussed in this article.

PII: S0278-2391(09)01399-8

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2009.07.007

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume 67, Issue 11, Supplement , Pages 60-73, November 2009