 |
| Title |
Dental Implant Placement into the Nasopalatine Canal May Be a Viable Option When Alternate Sites Do Not Exist |
| Clinical Question |
Is placement of dental implants into the nasopalatine canal a viable long-term option for patients lacking adequate bone to place dental implants elsewhere in the anterior maxilla? |
| Clinical Bottom Line |
For patients requiring dental implants in the anterior maxilla, placement into the nasopalatine canal is a viable option when alternate sites do not possess adequate bone. While a significant portion of patients (46%-71%) reported minor sensory alterations soon after implant surgery, all sensory alterations resolved over time. Implants placed in the nasopalatine canal showed a success rate of 84.6% at a mean follow-up time of 70 months. In general, patients were satisfied with their prostheses supported by implants placed in the nasopalatine canal. |
| Best Evidence |
(you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link) |
| PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
| #1) 23397941 | Penarrocha/2014 | 13 patients with a total of 78 implants placed (13 in nasopalatine canal) | Retrospective Cohort | | Key results | 6 of 13 patients reported minor decrease of sensitivity in anterior palate, which returned to normal after a few weeks. 84.6% success rate after a mean of 70 months. | | #2) 28570082 | Cavallaro/2016 | n/a | Review of the literature | | Key results | “The authors concluded that placing an implant into the nasopalatine canal is a viable procedure as part of a surgical and prosthetic treatment plan when there is a dearth of alternate sites for implant placement.” | |
| Evidence Search |
“dental implant” [All Fields] AND “failure” [All Fields] AND “nasopalatine canal” [All Fields]; “dental implant” [All Fields] AND “nasopalatine canal” [All Fields] |
Comments on
The Evidence |
Validity: Research methods from the retrospective cohort study (Penarrocha/2014) are clearly presented, sound, and repeatable. Despite this, the small sample size weakens the strength of the study. Penarrocha/2014 only investigated patients receiving full-arch prostheses. Single units placed into the nasopalatine canal were not investigated.
Perspective: The current literature varies in both quality and quantity. Large gaps exist and few studies have been conducted to directly investigate failure rates. As this treatment option gains acceptance, additional research should seek to confirm long term success.
|
| Applicability |
With the increase in prevalence of implant retained prostheses in clinical practice, and the prevalence of patients with atrophic maxillary arches, placement into the nasopalatine canal could prove to be a viable alternative to ridge augmentation prior to implant placement. |
| Specialty/Discipline |
(General Dentistry) (Oral Surgery) (Periodontics) (Prosthodontics) |
| Keywords |
Dental Implants, Nasopalatine Canal, Failure
|
| ID# |
3445 |
| Date of submission: |
12/03/2020 |
| E-mail |
leed10@uthscsa.edu |
| Author |
Dr. Daniel Lee |
| Co-author(s) |
Dr. Casey Goss |
| Co-author(s) e-mail |
gossc@uthscsa.edu |
| Faculty mentor/Co-author |
Dr. Matthew Checketts |
| Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
matthew.r.checketts.mil@mail.mil |
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) |
post a rationale |
| None available | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
| None available | |
|
|
