Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery· 2026Q2· Review
Growth-related considerations for dental implant placement in growing patients with craniofacial deformities: A narrative review
- 0citations
- Q2SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
Dental implants in growing patients with craniofacial deformities can lead to infraocclusion and aesthetic issues because they don't erupt with natural bone growth.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Dental implants are ankylosed and do not erupt, creating biological challenges in growing patients with craniofacial deformities.
- Implant placement before growth completion can cause infraocclusion, occlusal disharmony, and aesthetic problems.
- Risks are influenced by deformity type, skeletal maturity, implant site, and previous surgeries.
- Skeletal maturity indicators, considering sex-specific growth, are more reliable than chronological age for timing implant placement.
- Deferred definitive implant placement with multidisciplinary planning and transitional rehabilitation is recommended.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Osseointegrated dental implants behave as ankylosed units and cannot undergo compensatory eruption during craniofacial growth, creating distinct biological challenges when placement is considered in growing patients, particularly those with craniofacial deformities. This narrative review synthesizes and critically appraises current evidence on implant timing and growth-related risks in this population, with emphasis on biological growth patterns, deformity-specific considerations, and skeletal maturity-based timing frameworks. A literature search through December 2024 was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, supplemented by citation tracking; approximately 410 records were screened, 78 assessed in full text, and 22 sources formed the principal evidence base. Implant placement before growth completion may result in infraocclusion, occlusal disharmony, soft-tissue discrepancy, and aesthetic compromise, particularly in the anterior maxilla. Risks vary substantially with deformity type, skeletal maturity, implant site, and prior surgical intervention. Evidence remains heterogeneous, especially for craniosynostosis and hemifacial microsomia, where data are largely confined to case reports. Skeletal maturity indicators, with explicit attention to sex-related differences in growth timing, are more reliable than chronological age alone. Definitive implant placement should generally be deferred until skeletal and local site maturity are confirmed, supported by individualized multidisciplinary planning and transitional rehabilitation strategies to minimize long-term complications and revision burden.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Oral Surgery
Oral SurgeryDentistry