Peñarrocha David, Candel Eugenia, Guirado Jose Luis Calvo, Canullo Luigi, Peñarrocha Maria
1 Department of Stomatology, Valencia University Medical and Dental School.
J Oral Implantol. 2014 Dec;40(6):699-706. doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-12-00145.
To assess the survival rate of implants placed in the nasopalatine canal for the rehabilitation of patients with atrophic maxillae and the level of satisfaction of these patients. A retrospective study was performed between 2000 and 2009 of patients with severe atrophy of edentulous maxillae (Cawood and Howell's class V) rehabilitated with implant-supported prostheses with 1 implant placed in the nasopalatine canal. A preoperative computed tomography scan was obtained of all patients and all surgeries were performed by the same surgeon. The following parameters were assessed: neurosensory status of the anterior palate (using the pointed/blunt discrimination method); implant success rate according to criteria described by Albrektsson et al; patient satisfaction with the prosthetic treatment (using visual analogue scales). Thirteen patients with a mean age of 54.8 years were treated, 5 men and 8 women. Seventy-eight implants were placed: 13 in the nasopalatine canal, 6 in the zygomatic bone, 12 in the pterygomaxillary region, 2 in the frontomaxillary buttress and 45 in other locations. Six patients reported a slight decrease in sensitivity in the anterior palate after surgery, which disappeared in all cases within a few weeks. Two early failures (before prosthetic loading) and no late failures (after prosthetic loading) of nasopalatine implants were recorded, yielding a success rate for these implants of 84.6% after a mean follow-up of 70 months (range 24 to 132 months. High patient satisfaction with the prosthetic restoration was generally achieved in terms of comfort, stability, function, esthetics, and ease of cleaning. Residual bone is associated with the nasopalatine canal, even in patients with severe maxillary atrophy. This canal may be considered a possible location for an anterior implant when rehabilitating atrophic patients using implant-supported prostheses.
评估植入鼻腭管的种植体用于萎缩性上颌骨患者修复的生存率以及这些患者的满意度。对2000年至2009年间严重无牙上颌骨萎缩（Cawood和Howell V级）且采用种植体支持修复体修复、其中1枚种植体植入鼻腭管的患者进行了一项回顾性研究。对所有患者进行了术前计算机断层扫描，所有手术均由同一位外科医生进行。评估了以下参数：前腭的神经感觉状态（采用尖/钝辨别法）；根据Albrektsson等人描述的标准评估种植体成功率；患者对修复治疗的满意度（采用视觉模拟量表）。治疗了13例平均年龄为54.8岁的患者，其中男性5例，女性8例。共植入78枚种植体：13枚植入鼻腭管，6枚植入颧骨，12枚植入翼上颌区域，2枚植入额上颌支柱，45枚植入其他部位。6例患者术后报告前腭感觉略有下降，但所有病例在几周内均消失。记录到2例鼻腭管种植体早期失败（修复体加载前），无晚期失败（修复体加载后），平均随访70个月（范围24至132个月）后，这些种植体的成功率为84.6%。患者对修复体在舒适度、稳定性、功能、美观和清洁便利性方面普遍高度满意。即使在严重上颌萎缩的患者中，残余骨也与鼻腭管相关。在使用种植体支持修复体修复萎缩性患者时，该管可被视为前牙种植体的一个可能植入部位。
