Diagnosis and Treatment Planning: A Surgical Perspective

  • Hooman M. ZarrinkelkEmail author
  • Saj Jivraj
Part of the BDJ Clinician’s Guides book series (BDJCG)


Treatment of edentulism has always been a challenge to the dental profession. Reconstruction of atrophic jaws caused by edentulism has necessitated sometimes complex grafting procedures. Grafting procedures carry significant morbidity and cost associated with them. Today, there is great interest from the public and dental professionals in the less invasive graft-less approaches to the atrophic jaw rehabilitation. Graft-less approaches to treatment involve specific manner of placement of sufficient number of dental implants in strategic positions of patients’ existing bone structures. The surgeon must understand the three absolute surgical requirements for successful treatment. Diagnostic factors to be considered by the surgeon to fulfil these absolute requirements for rehabilitation are discussed in this chapter.


  1. 1.
    Slide GD, Akinkugbe AA, Sanders AE. Projections of US edentulism prevalence following 5 decades of decline. J Dent Res. 2014;93(10):959–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kerschbaum T. Long-term prognosis of conventional prosthodontic restorations. In: Naert I, Van Steenberghe D, Worthington P, editors. Osseontegration in oral rehabilitation. London: Quintessence Publishing Co. p. 33–49.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stellingsma C, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ, Batenburg RH. Reconstruction of the extremely rebreed mandible with interposed bone grafts and placement of endosseous implants. A preliminary report on outcome of treatment and patients satisfaction. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998;36:290–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Triplett RG, Nevins M, Marx RE, Spagnoli DB, Oates TW, Moy PK. Pivotal, randomized, parallel evaluation of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2/absorbable collagen sponge and autogenous bone graft for maxillary sinus floor augmentation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67:1947–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keller EE, Tolman DE, Eckert SE. Maxillary antral-nasal inlay autogenous bone graft reconstruction of compromised maxilla: a 12 year retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14:707–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Block MS, Baughman DG. Reconstruction of severe anterior maxillary defect using distraction osteogenesis. Bone grafts and implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;63:291–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aghaloo TL, Moy PK. Which hard tissue augmentation techniques are the most successful in furnishing bony support for implant placement? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(suppl):49–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blackburn TK, Cawood JI, Stoelinga PJW, Lowe D. What is the quality of evidence base for pre-implant surgery of the atrophic jaw? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;37:1073–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. The efficacy of various bone augmentation procedures for dental implants: a Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21:696–710.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brånemark PI, Svensson B, van Steenberge D. Ten year survival rates of fixed prostheses on four or six implants ad modum Branemak in full edentulism. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995;6:227–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Agliardi E, Panigatti S, Clericó M, Villa C, Maló P. Immediate rehabilitation of the edentulous jaw with full fixed prostheses supported by four implants: interim results of a single cohort prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:459–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Moss S, Molina G. A longitudinal study of the survival of all-on-4 implants in the mandible with up to 10 years of follow-up. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011;142:310–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laney WR, Tolman DE. The Mayo Clinic experience with tissue-integrated prostheses. In: Albrektsson T, Zarb GA, editors. The Brånemark Oeontegrated implant. Chicago: Quintessence; 1989. p. 165–95.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Position paper:medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw—2014 update. Chicago: American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons; 2014.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sadowsky SJ. The implant-supported prosthesis for the edentulous arch: design considerations. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;78(1):28–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schnitman P. The profile prosthesis: an aesthetic fixed implant-supported restoration for the resorbed maxilla. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1999;11:143–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fortin Y, Sullivan RM, Rangert B. The Marius implant bridge: surgical and prosthetic rehabilitation of the completely edentulous upper jaw with moderate to severe resorption: a 5-year retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2002;4:69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bedrossian E. Implant treatment planning for the edentulous patient, a Graftless approach. St.Louis: Mosby; 2011.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aboul-Ela LM. The evaluation of the interocclusal distance in complete dentures. Egypt Dent J. 1967;13:56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Owen WD, Douglas JR. Near or full occlusal vertical dimension increase of severely reduced inter-arch distance in complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1971;26:134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessensce; 1985. p. 199–209.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ding X, Lia SH, Zhu XH, et al. Effect of diameter and length on stress distribution of the alveolar crest around immediate loading implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2008;11:279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jensen OT, Adams MW. The maxillary M-4: a technical and biomechanical note for the all-on-4 management of severe maxillary atrophy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67:1739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brunski JB. Biomechanical aspects of the optimal number of implants to carry a cross-arch full restoration. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014;7(Suppl2):S111–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, et al. Osseointegrated implants in treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl. 1977;16:1–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bedrossian E. Immediate function with zygomatic implant: a graftless solution for the patient with mild to advanced atrophy of the maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21(6):937–42.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Malo P, Nobre M, Lopes A. The rehabilitation of completely edentulous maxillae with different degrees of resorption with four or more immediately loaded implants: a 5-year retrospective study and a new classification. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2011;4:227–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Krakmenov L, Kahn M. Rangert B, et al: tilting of posterior mandibular and maxillary implants for improved prosthesis support. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15:405–14.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Duyck J, et al. Magnitude and distribution of occlusal forces on oral implants supporting fixed prosthesis: an in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000;11:465–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Diplomate, American Board of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeonsChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Fellow, American College of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeonsWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Private PracticeVenturaUSA
  4. 4.Herman Ostrow USC School of DentistryLos AngelesUSA
  5. 5.Eastman Dental InstituteLondonUK
  6. 6.Private PracticeOxnardUSA

Personalised recommendations