DTAR Journal

Introduction

Subperiosteal implants have been introduced in 1941 by Gustav Dahl and revisited in 1946 by Norman Goldberg and Aaron Gerschkoff and are the customized surgical devices in subperiosteal implantology Later numerous authors including Linkow LI [1-4], Cranin AN [5-9], Weiss CM [10-11], Bodine RL, Yanase RT [12], Bodine A [12], Chanavaz M., Maurice James Fagan, Robert A. James [13], Martians [14], E. Belotti [15] have contributed to the evolution of the technique with improvements in the design [5,16,17], in the study of the bone-implant interface [11,18], in the microbiological aspects [19], epithelial attack [20-22] and statistical studies [15,23]. The implants have been validated for efficacy, safety and survival by numerous longitudinal, prospective and retrospective studies, long-term follow-up [24-30]. The most relevant retrospective study was provided by Moore and Hansen in an 18-year temporal analysis [31]. The most significant prospective study was performed by Bodine, Yanase, Bodine [32] with a 41-year investigation [23]. Subperiosteal implant, among the techniques available and indicated for the treatment of immediate loading advanced atrophies (Cawood and Howell class VI), is the implant that benefits the longest prospective study These implants are indicated for the treatment with immediate loading of both total and partial severe and advanced bone atrophies [10] and are alternative or priority to onlay and inlay grafting procedures, to the Lefort 1 osteotomy with interpositional graft, to the intra-extra sinus zygomatic implants (Quad / Hibrid Zygoma)

The technique consolidated over the years requires, after surgical exposure of the surface bone, a direct silicone impression of the maxillary or mandibular bone. Some operators (including myself) took a second impression of the bone surface free of blood traces to ensure the certainty of anatomical details; the impression was cast in plaster and the anatomical replica cast in vitallium. In a second surgical time (generally 3 weeks after the first surgical session) the customized device was applied to the bone. The design phase consisted of drawing the structure by searching for undercuts to ensure the press-fit primary retention. After 40 days from the second intervention, the attack of the deper layer of the periosteum (sharpey fibers) on the bone directly anchored the device permanently (secondary stability). Currently the concepts and programming have not changed but the digital evolution [33- 36,13] has allowed a qualitative leap for the following reasons: 1) another new therapeutic option in the treatment of severe atrophies; 2) there is no need an impression (which remains the gold standard in precision); 3) allowed a virtual design of the device; 4) extended the possibility of reaching bone surfaces difficult to replicate with the impression (retrotuberal-pterygoid site and hamulus); 5) the operation was reduced to one surgical phase instead of two phases. Contrary to the widespread view of the use of unalloyed and alloyed titanium (which I introduced in Italy about 20 years ago) compared to vitallium it did not improve the integration of the device to the bone and the adverse considerations were declared refutable for those who have experience on field. Titanium alloy in beta phase for greater flexibility is allowed an easier overcoming of bone undercuts compared to vitallium Titanium compared to the more rigid vitallium has perhaps allowed isoelastic micro deformations and greater conservation of the marginal bone under load.

Case Report

The female patient comes from a regenerative failure (inlay graft and lateral vertical graft) Figure 1.

History

1) 60-year-old Caucasian female; 2) marked tension and pain to the palpation of the chewing muscles; 3) popping to the left t.m.j. (disc displacement with reduction); 4) smoker; 5) third skeletal class; 6) being treated with antihypertensive drugs (angiotensin II receptor blocker). The patient was subjected to a multilayer c.t. with precise settings. From tomography it is possible to reconstruct the virtual replica of the maxillary bone. From the virtual replica we obtain a stereolithographic model with a resolution of 15 micron. On the anatomical model I drew framework for alloy beta titanium casting. The framework has been sandblasted and passivated. An ambivalent mesostructure was conceived and intended to accommodate both a pek superstructure and superstructure with bolts and friction pins based on the patient’s preferences. The pek (polyetherketone) structure has the advantage of being more elastic as opposed to the supertructure with bolts and friction pins The patient has been subjected to conscious sedation (midazolam) and discharged with fixed temporary in acrylic stiffened by fiberglass and with the following therapy: Betamethasone 2 mg for 5 days; ibuprofene 600 mg bid for 7 days; amoxicillin and clavulanic acid 1 gram bid for 7 days, gastroprotective drug (lansoprazolo). No complications after surgery. After about 6 months, the work was finalized with a removable prosthesis and a bolt superstructure according to the patient’s preference. The restoration of vertical dimension correction and centric occlusion has healing internal derangement and disappearance of the popping and ipsilateral later deviation.

Final Considerations

The interpositional grafts, the inlay and onlay grafts have become the target for vertical and horizontal bone regeneration. The grafting procedure based on osteoconduction and osteoinduction without considering that these biochemical and histological processes can occur partially or not totally may be a wrong choice. The end result is that the patient has undergone major surgery (general anesthesia, not always favorable course, minor interventions of correction and long waiting times for the finalization of the work) without having obtained a favorable outcome. All oral and maxillofacial surgeons with specific interest in severe atrophies should know this technique in order to correct their own failures and as an exit strategy

References

1. Linkow LI, Mahler MS (1976) Three-year progress report on the pterygoid extension implant for the totally and partially, edentulous maxillae. Quintessence Int Dent Dig 7: 9-17.
2. Linkow LI (1980) Maxillary pterygoid extension implants: the state of the art. Dent Clin North Am 24: 535-551.
3. Linkow LI (1984) Evolutionary design trends in the mandibular subperiosteal implant. J Oral Implantol 11: 402-438.
4. http://www.linkowlibrary.org/books
5. Cranin AN, Satler N, Shpuntoff R (1985) The unilateral pterygohamular subperiosteal implant: evolution of a technique. J Am Dent Assoc 110: 496-500.
6. Whittaker JM, Cranin AN, James RA (1989) Case report using scanning electron microscopy and EDAX (Energy-dispersive Analysis of X-rays) to study the tissue surrounding a subperiosteal implant after repeated surgery. J Oral Implantol 15: 132-136.
7. Cranin AN, Klein M, Ley JP, Andrews J, DiGregorio R (1998) An in vitro comparison of the computerized tomography/CAD-CAM and direct bone impression techniques for subperiosteal implant model generation. J Oral Implantol 24: 74-79.
8. Singh P, Cranin NA (2009) Atlas of Oral Implantology. 3^rd
9. Cranin AN (1992) Posterior region maxilla: a proven implant alternative. Dent Implantol Update 3: 81-84.
10. Weiss CM, Judy KW (1974) Severe mandibular atrophy-biological considerations of routine treatment with the complete subperiosteal implant. Oral Implantol 4: 431-469.
11. Weiss CM, WEISS ADAM (2001) Principles and Practice of Implant Dentistry.
12. Bodine RL, Yanase RT, Bodine A (1996) Forty years of experience with subperiosteal implant dentures in 41 edentulous patients. J Prosthet Dent. 75: 33-44.
13. James RA (1994) CT scan CAD/CAM subperiosteal implant. Aust Dent J 39: 56-57.
14. Pasqualini U, Pasqualini ME (2009) Treatise of Implant Dentistry: The Italian Tribute to Modern Implantology.
15. Impianti endo-ossei a lama e impianti sotto-periostei Enrico Belotti et coll. Attualita' Dentale numero 39 anno anno VIII 13 dicembre 1992.
16. Ferrer F (1994) A newly designed partial subperiosteal implant and the classical design: a comparative study. P R Health Sci J 13:183-190.
17. Nazarian A (2014) Placement of a modified subperiosteal implant: a clinical solution to help those with no bone. Dent Today 33: 134,136-137.
18. Nordquist WD, Krutchkoff DJ (2014) The Custom Endosteal Implant: histology and case report of a retrieved maxillary custom osseous- integrated implant nine years in service. J Oral Implantol 40: 195-201.
19. Rams TE, Balkin BE, Roberts TW, Molzan AK (2013) Microbiological aspects of human mandibular subperiosteal dental implants. J Oral Implantol 39: 714-722.
20. Stvrtecky RO, Zarate JO, Borgetti ZA (1991) Epithelial attachment and subperiosteal implants. J Oral Implantol 15: 62-65.
21. Naranjo R, Dreyer Arroyo E, Vicent Vazquez R, Matas Colom J (1991) Clinical study of peri-abutment gingiva in patients with subperiosteal implants Matas Rev Dent Chile 82: 10-16.
22. Whittaker JM, James RA, Lozada J, Cordova C, Freidline C (1990) Suspension mechanism of subperiosteal implants in baboons. J Oral Implantol 16: 190-197.
23. Bodine RL, Yanase RT, Bodine A (1996) Forty years of experience with subperiosteal implant dentures in 41 edentulous patients. J Prosthet Dent 75: 33-44.
24. Young L Jr, Michel JD, Moore DJ (1983) A twenty-year evaluation of subperiosteal implants. J Prosthet Dent 49: 690-694.
25. Sirbu I (2003) Subperiosteal implant technology: report from Rumania. J Oral Implantol 29: 189-194.
26. Amet EM (1996) The mandibular subperiosteal implant denture: a prospective survival study. J Prosthet Dent 75: 347-348.
27. Levi E, Wilder L (1992) Subperiosteal implants: success and longevity. Implant Soc 3: 5-6.
28. Weiss CM, Reynolds J (2000) A collective conference on the utilization of subperiosteal implants in implant dentistry. Oral Implantol 26: 127-128.
29. Lozada JL (1996) Long-term clinical experience and statistical analysis of CAT scan subperiosteal implants at Loma Linda University. J Oral Implantol 22: 34-36.
30. Benjamin LS (1992) Long-term retrospective studies on the CT-scan, CAD/CAM, one-stage surgery hydroxyapatite-coated subperiosteal implants, including human functional retrievals. Dent Clin North Am 36: 77-93; discussion 94-5.
31. Moore DJ, Hansen PA (2004) A descriptive 18-year retrospective review of subperiosteal implants for patients with severely atrophied edentulous mandibles. J Prosthet Dent 92: 145-150.
32. Bodine RL, Yanase RT, Bodine A (1996) Forty years of experience with subperiosteal implant dentures in 41 edentulous patients. J Prosthet Dent 75: 33-44.
33. Gellric h NC, Zimmerer RM, Spalthoff S, Jehn P, Pott PC, et al. (2017) A customised digitally engineered solution for fixed dental rehabilitation in severe bone deficiency: A new innovative line extension in implant dentistry. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 45:1632-1638.
34. Kusek ER (2009) The use of laser technology (Er;Cr:YSGG) and stereolithography to aid in the placement of a subperiosteal implant: case study. J Oral Implantol 35: 5-11.
35. McAllister ML (1998) Application of stereolithography to subperiosteal implant manufacture. J Oral Implantol 24: 89-92.
36. Fischer JE (1993) CAD/CAM subperiosteal implants in Australia. Case report. Aust Dent J 38: 261-264.