Russell D. Nishimura

Nasal defects and osseointegrated implants: UCLA experience

A clinical study of 23 craniofacial implants placed in 11 nasal defects was conducted over a 7-year period. Implant-retained nasal prostheses were fabricated, implant success rate was determined, and the soft tissue responses were recorded at 6-month intervals. No data were gathered on two implants because of patient death. The implant success rate was 71.4% (15/21) but varied significantly by anatomic site. The implant success rate in the glabella was 0% (0/4), whereas the success rate in the anterior nasal floor was 88.1% (15/17). All implant failures occurred within the first year of loading. A five-point scale was used to record the health of the peri-implant soft tissues, and the patients were followed up from 6 to 74 months. The unit of measure was a visit/site, and a unit was assigned for each instance an implant site was evaluated. Evaluations were conducted at 6-month intervals for a total of 76 visit/sites for the study period. The results revealed that 85.5% (65/76) of the visit/sites demonstrated an absence of inflammation; 10.5% (8/76) of the visit/sites demonstrated slight redness; 1.3% (1/76) demonstrated peri-implant red and moist tissues; 2.6% (2/76) demonstrated granulation tissue associated with the implants; and 0% (0/76) demonstrated infection of the peri-implant soft tissues. Severe soft tissue reactions around implants placed in the anterior nasal floor are rare.

AURICULAR PROSTHESES AND OSSEOINTEGRATED IMPLANTS: UCLA EXPERIENCE

A clinical study of 40 craniofacial implants placed in 13 auricular defects was conducted over a 6-year period. Implant-retained prostheses were fabricated, the implant success rate was determined, and the soft tissue responses were recorded at regular intervals. All of the implants became osseointegrated and none demonstrated failure during the study period. A five-point scale was used to record the health of the peri-implant soft tissues and the patients were followed up for up to 69 months. The results were as follows: 55.1% of the visit/sites demonstrated an absence of inflammation; 32.3% of the visit/sites demonstrated slight redness; 4.7% demonstrated red and moist peri-implant tissues; 5.5% demonstrated granulation tissue associated with the implants; and in 2.4% of the implants, infection of the peri-implant soft tissues was noted. Good patient hygiene compliance combined with thin and immobile peri-implant soft tissues resulted in minimal soft tissue complications.

Osseointegrated implants and orbital defects: U.C.L.A. experience

PURPOSE A clinical study of 23 craniofacial implants placed in 8 irradiated and nonirradiated orbital detects was conducted over a 7-year period. MATERIAL AND METHODS Implant-retained orbital prostheses were fabricated, implant success rate was determined, and the soft tissue responses were recorded at 6-month intervals. As a result of patient death, no data were gathered on three implants. A five-point scale was used to record the health of the peri-implant soft tissues and the patients were followed from 9 to 72 months. The unit of measure was a visit/site that was assigned for each instance an implant site was evaluated. Evaluations were conducted at 6-month intervals, and for the study period, there were 80 visit/sites. RESULTS The study revealed that 42.5% (34/80) of the visit/sites demonstrated an absence of inflammation; 23.7% (19/80) of visit/sites demonstrated slight redness; 13.8% (11/80) demonstrated peri-implant red and moist tissues; 6.2% (5/80) demonstrated granulation tissue associated with the implants; and 13.8% (11/80) infection of the peri-implant soft tissues was noted. Implant success rate was 35% (7/20); implant success rate in the nonradiated patients was 37.5% (3/8) and the success rate for radiated patients was 33.3% (4/12). Implants placed in the orbital region demonstrated a high failure rate. Most implant failures occurred late as opposed to early in the study period. CONCLUSION Orbital implants should be placed in patients who understand that long-term success rates may be low and require meticulous hygiene maintenance.

Photoelastic stress analysis of load transfer to implants and natural teeth comparing rigid and semirigid connectors.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Controversy exists regarding the connection of implants to natural teeth. PURPOSE This simulation study measured photoelastically the biologic behavior of implants. Stress transfer patterns with variable implant support and simulated natural teeth through rigid and nonrigid connection were examined under simulated functional loads. MATERIAL AND METHODS A photoelastic model of a human left mandible edentulous distal to first premolar was fabricated having 2 screw type implants (3.75x13 mm) embedded within the edentulous area. Two fixed prosthetic restorations were fabricated with either a nonsplinted proximal contact or a soldered proximal contact, and cast precision dowel attachment between implant areas and simulated tooth. Simulated vertical occlusal loads were applied at fixed locations on the restorations. Stresses, which developed in the supporting structure, were monitored photoelastically and recorded photographically. RESULTS The rigid connector in the 1 implant situation caused only slightly higher stresses in the supporting structure than the nonrigid connector. The distally loaded 1 and 2 implant-supported restoration produced the highest apical stresses, which occurred at the distal implant. The rigid connector demonstrated the greatest stress transfer in the 2 implant-supported restoration. CONCLUSIONS Lower stresses apical to the tooth or implant occurred with forces applied further from the supporting abutment. Although the least stress was observed when using a nonrigid connector, the rigid connector in particular situations caused only slightly higher stresses in the supporting structure. The rigid connector demonstrated more widespread stress transfer in the 2 implant-supported restoration. Recommendations for selection of connector design should be based on sound clinical periodontal health of a tooth and the support provided by implants.

Treatment of edentulous maxillae with osseointegrated implants

Edentulous maxillae can be restored with implant supported fixed restorations containing denture teeth on a metal framework, implant-retained removable overlay prostheses, or porcelain fused-to-metal fixed prostheses. Esthetics and hygiene access are two important factors in determining the restoration best suited for each patient. Treatment planning considerations and treatment procedures for the various techniques are discussed.

Restoration of oral function after maxillectomy with osseous integrated implant retained maxillary obturators

This study assesses the success rate of osseous integrated implantation in assisting the prosthetic obturation of maxillectomy defects. Twenty-three patients received a total of 85 osseous integrated implants used for retaining maxillary obturators between 1985 and 1993. Defects include 13 radical maxillectomies, 5 premaxillary resections, 4 subtotal maxillectomies, and 1 soft-palate resection. Thirteen patients (50 implants) received a radiation dose ranging from 5,040 to 7,940 cGy. Implants can be placed at the time of ablation or subsequently. Efforts were made to spare uninvolved segments of the maxilla, especially premaxillary segments and tuberosities, at the time of ablation. Following a 6-month period of integration, implants were uncovered and utilized in prosthetic rehabilitation. Specific implant sites reveal variable success rates, with the anterior maxilla being 86% successful compared with the posterior maxilla being 57% successful. Radiation reduces the success rate from 80% to 55%, although it does not eliminate a patient from being a candidate for implantation. Prosthetic rehabilitation of large maxillary defects can be greatly facilitated with the use of osseous integrated implants in the remaining midfacial skeleton.

Reproducibility of Frame Positioning for Fractionated Stereotactic Radiosurgery

Fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy is a useful new approach for treating a number of intracranial neoplasms including meningiomas, pituitary adenomas, craniopharyngiomas, and recurrent gliomas. For the majority of these we employ a conventional fractionation scheme of 180 cGy per fraction for 25 to 30 fractions, using a modified Gill–Thomas–Cosman (GTC) relocatable frame to accommodate fractionated delivery. The GTC system uses a custom acrylic dental appliance to set the frame position and an occipital plate and Velcro straps fix the head in place. Daily reproducibility is evaluated through use of a “depth helmet,” a plastic hemispherical shell containing 25 holes at regularly spaced intervals. The depth helmet attaches to the GTC frame and the distance from the shell to the patients head is recorded at each of the 25 positions. This paper describes a new simplified approach to the quantitative assessment of day-to-day variability in head fixation using the depth helmet measurements. This approach avoids the need to try and decide on the relative merit of 25 numerical differences at each fitting and provides a straightforward mathematical and conceptual framework for the description of fit and clinical decision making. The mathematical analysis and computer program we have developed uses all 25 measurements to provide a single three-dimensional displacement vector as well as displacement values in the three principal patient dimensions. Measurements at each of the 25 depth helmet positions are automatically separated into three principal axes corresponding to the patients left/right (x), anterior/posterior (y), and superior/inferior (z) using the spherical relations: x = r sin(Φ) cos(θ), y = r sin(Φ) sin(θ), z = r cos(Φ), where θ and Φ are the polar and azimuthal angles respectively and ris the distance from the center of the depth helmet to the surface of the patients head. For each patient, a set of initial measurements is taken at the CT scanner with the patient in the treatment (supine) position. Because treatment planning is based on the CT scan, this serves as the baseline from which subsequent deviations are recorded. In an analysis of our first 30 patients representing over 750 fractions, the mean RMS deviation, that is, the mean three-dimensional displacement from baseline, was 0.468 ± 0.296 mm. Among individual patients the range was 0.169 mm to 1.438 mm. A closer analysis suggests that in-plane (AP/PA-lateral) deviations occur randomly. Deviations along the superior/inferior direction are greater than those in-plane, and in several patients a small shift along this axis, possibly due to a loosening or stretching of the Velcro straps, has been noted over time. We have found our method to be a useful indicator of day-to-day reproducibility, allowing ready identification and correction of three-dimensional shifts relative to the patient axes. Based on our initial analysis, we can now define quantitative limits of acceptability in repositioning for subsequent fractionated delivery.