Home  -  About us  -  Editorial board  -  Search  -  Ahead of print  -  Current issue  -  Archives  -  Instructions  -  Subscribe  -  Contacts  -  Advertise - Login 
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 347-351

Implant placement into the nasopalatine foramen: Considerations from anatomical and surgical point of view

1 Department of Prosthodontics & Crown and Bridge Including Implantology, Institute of Dental Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Department of Oral Surgery, Institute of Dental Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India
3 Department of OMDR, Institute of Dental Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India
4 Department of MDS Students, Institute of Dental Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India
5 Institute of Dental Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Prof. Mukesh Kumar Singhal
17-B Prakash puram, Opposite Private Ward Gate of Civil Hospital, Saharanpur - 247 001, Uttar Pradesh
Login to access the Email id

DOI: 10.4103/ams.ams_161_17

PMID: 30693262

Rights and Permissions

Implant placement is a challenge in the anterior maxilla if the available bone is reduced and esthetics is challenging. The ideal implant position should be considered in all three dimensions: mesiodistal, apicocoronal, and orofacial. This article includes a review and a case report for the anatomical and clinical perspective of implant placement in nasopalatine foramen (near incisal canal). In this case report, the edentulous space is mutilated in between the area #12 and #21 teeth. Therefore, only one, 3.0 W/10.00 L implant (bone size 4.2 mm width and 11 mm length) could be placed. Radiographically, D2 bone quality was diagnosed. Before surgery, an emphasis was given over the proper implant selection to avoid oversized implants due to critical anatomical landmark. Careful and with minimal trauma, the soft tissue was handled and implant placement was performed in a proper position, using information from panoramic radiograph, 3-D Dentascan. A surgical guide was used for placement of the implant. Finally, immediate loading of temporary implant prosthesis was done. The primary outcome was satisfactory, as after 72 h, no swelling and numbness were reported. The patient has been recalled after healing period of 24 weeks for permanent restoration.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded349    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal