Craniofacial Morphometry for Craniofacial Implant
Craniofacial implants are being increasingly used to treat patients with sequelae of oncological resections, trauma, and congenital deficiencies, among other issues. The aim of this investigation was to establish the minimum and maximum bone dimensions present in the most used places for the inserti...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Lenguaje: | English |
| Publicado: |
Sociedad Chilena de Anatomía
2012
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0717-95022012000300063 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Craniofacial implants are being increasingly used to treat patients with sequelae of oncological resections, trauma, and congenital deficiencies, among other issues. The aim of this investigation was to establish the minimum and maximum bone dimensions present in the most used places for the insertion of craniofacial implants. A descriptive study was designed analyzing 40 human skulls using cone-beam computed tomography; in the volumetric reconstruction the points most often used in clinical investigations for the insertion of implants were selected, representing the orbital, perinasal, zygomatic bone and periauricular regions, measuring the distance between the cortical bones on the sagittal, axial and coronal planes; comparisons between gender and with other investigations with a similar aim were also made. In the supraorbital area, values of 7.92±1.82 mm were found and in the lateral area values of 7.54±0.98 mm, allowing the placement of implants 5 or 6 mm in length. In the area of the zygomatic bone, dimensions of 10.4±2.35 mm were obtained, allowing the placement of implants 8 mm in length. In the periauricular area values were obtained of 2.93±0.55 mm in the superior region and 3.1±0.7 mm in the inferior region, whereas in the perinasal area implants 4 mm in length can be placed. We concluded that the craniomaxillofacial bone structure presents acceptable widths for the installation of implants; the periauricular region presents lower dimensions, with the possibility of intracranial communication in areas above the external auditory meatus. |
|---|