Search

Background: The physiologic bone remodeling accompanying tooth extraction is a phenomenon well described in the dental literature. Extraction sockets severely compromised by local infection, trauma, iatrogenesis, or other factors may exhibit enhanced reduction in alveolar dimensions during healing. The purpose of this report is to present an alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) protocol specifically intended for use at severely compromised sites. Methods: Seven patients presented to the Department of Periodontics, Army Postgraduate Dental School, Fort Gordon, Georgia, requiring extraction of teeth with partial or near‐complete loss of the facial/buccal cortex. At each site, a cross‐linked bovine collagen membrane was used to prevent collapse of the facial/buccal soft tissue and maintain space, a freeze‐dried bone allograft was applied in the socket, and a dense polytetrafluoroethylene membrane covered the occlusal aspect. Results: All sites healed uneventfully and resulted in favorable alveolar ridge dimensions for implant placement. Conclusion: Few authors have proposed specific ARP methods for managing severely deficient extraction sockets. The predominant recommendation has been staged reconstruction of the site applying hard and soft tissue augmentation. Observations reported herein suggest that staged reconstruction is avoidable at some extraction sockets exhibiting severe alveolar compromise. Controlled clinical investigation of this protocol appears warranted. Key points: Few authors have proposed alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) methods specifically intended for use at severely compromised extraction sockets.The prevailing recommendation at such sites is a staged protocol involving tooth extraction with delayed hard and soft tissue augmentation.The presented bilaminar ARP technique may eliminate the need for staged reconstruction at some severely compromised extraction sockets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focused clinical question: What factors identify the optimal bone augmentation techniques for managing slight, moderate, and severe horizontal alveolar ridge deficiency (ARD) at dental implant sites? Summary: Horizontal ARD is a concern at a high proportion of sites receiving dental implants, and clinicians have developed a variety of surgical procedures to address such defects. In a particular case, selection of the optimal treatment may depend predominantly on defect severity, location (anterior versus posterior), and configuration (contained versus noncontained). This report provides a framework for selecting an augmentation method when presented with a slight, moderate, or severe horizontal ARD at a site requiring dental implant placement. Conclusion: Multiple treatment options are available for planned implant sites exhibiting horizontal ARD; severe posterior and slight anterior defects intuitively call for different approaches. Although rigid guidelines for selecting the optimal augmentation method do not exist, some techniques are poorly suited for esthetically demanding sites. A framework considering defect severity, location, and configuration may help guide clinical decisions on this topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Existing evidence supports superior treatment outcomes in guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures employing membrane fixation. The purpose of this report is to present a specific flap design and suturing method for stabilizing GBR barrier membranes. Case Presentation: Two generally healthy patients received GBR using native collagen membranes stabilized with absorbable sutures. In both cases, we fixed barrier membranes apically using "triangle" sutures. Sling sutures (Case 1) or triangle sutures (Case 2) secured the crestal and palatal aspects of the membranes. No postoperative complications occurred, and both sites exhibited favorable alveolar ridge volume for implant placement. Conclusions: The described triangle suture technique reliably stabilized GBR barrier membranes without the need for fixation hardware. Compared with suturing methods that limit graft volume and apply pressure over the grafted area, the triangle suture may offer clinical advantages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is the most commonly utilized procedure for augmenting deficient alveolar ridges in support of dental implant placement. In a GBR procedure, barrier membrane dimensions, bone graft volume, and surgical complexity may influence the risk of postsurgical morbidity. Case presentation: A 25-year-old female in good general health received GBR at two mandibular first molar sites exhibiting horizontal ridge deficiency. High-density polytetrafluoroethylene membranes were intentionally limited in size, and small-volume freeze-dried bone allografts were applied only where clinically beneficial for implant site development. Treatment resulted in clinically favorable ridge augmentation with no appreciable swelling and minimal postoperative discomfort. Conclusion: At dental implant sites exhibiting modest alveolar ridge deficiency, limiting GBR barrier membrane dimensions and bone graft volumes may enhance patient-centered outcomes while accomplishing clinical goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Retained cement following delivery of an implant-supported crown is strongly associated with peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, and screw retention is a strategy for avoiding this problem entirely. In the esthetic zone, screw retention compromises esthetics unless the screw access in the crown is concealed to the palatal of the incisal edge. To avoid positioning the implant platform excessively toward the palate, practitioners can design an angled screw access channel in the crown. Case Presentation: A healthy 22-year-old patient with nonrestorable tooth #9 received extraction and immediate implant placement with immediate provisionalization. The screw access channel for the provisional restoration involved the incisal edge. Rather than placing a custom abutment and cementing the definitive restoration, an angled screw access channel was employed. The implant-supported restoration exhibited favorable esthetics, and the possibility of retained cement was avoided. Conclusion: Up to a point, positioning maxillary anterior implants toward the palate is favorable. When the long axis of the implant is directed between the incisal edge and the cingulum of adjacent teeth, the implantsupported crown can be screw retained without compromising esthetics. In immediate implant situations, such positioning also increases the distance between the implant and the facial alveolar bone and encourages a favorable position of the marginal peri-implant mucosa. However, an excessively palatal platform position compels a restoration with irregular contours, which can frustrate proper oral hygiene and professional maintenance. Angled screw access channels allow screw retention without excessive palatal positioning of the platform, avoiding the possibility of cement-related peri-implant disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior studies have defined minimum mesiodistal space (MS) and faciolingual alveolar width (FAW) requirements for dental implant sites, and failure to observe these constraints may adversely impact peri-implant health and esthetics. However, to the authors' knowledge, no previous reports have established frequencies at which anterior tooth positions present favorable MS and FAW for implant accommodation. A single examiner analyzed 205 cone-beam computed tomographic images, recording MS and FAW available for implant placement at anterior tooth positions. The examiner compared measurements with standardized implant diameters to assess anticipated implant-to-tooth distances and peri-implant bone thicknesses. In the esthetic zone, lateral incisor sites most frequently failed to present favorable MS. At maxillary lateral incisor positions, 22% (left) and 27% (right) of sites offered less than 2 millimeters between the proposed implant platform and the adjacent teeth. In mandibular incisor positions, implant-to-tooth distance was less than 2 mm at 79% through 97% of sites and less than 1.5 mm at 35% through 76% of sites. Over one-half of maxillary incisor sites and 78% through 95% of mandibular incisor sites exhibited FAW of less than 4 mm beyond implant diameter. In the population evaluated, mandibular incisor positions frequently presented unfavorable MS to accommodate conventional narrow-diameter implants. In addition, considerable proportions of mandibular incisor and maxillary lateral incisor sites may be at risk of developing unfavorable peri-implant bone thickness when conventional narrow-diameter implants are used. Practitioners should consider small-diameter implants and nonimplant tooth replacement methods for many patients missing single mandibular incisors or maxillary lateral incisors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focused Clinical Question: How should clinicians manage dental extraction sockets when immediate implant placement is contraindicated, and alveolar ridge preservation is expected to result in inadequate bone volume for implant placement? Summary: Three fundamental options for extraction socket management form a hierarchical continuum in sites where dental implant placement is planned: place an immediate implant, perform ridge preservation, or perform ridge augmentation. The available volume and quality of bone and keratinized mucosa are the primary considerations driving the decision, and each tier in the continuum encompasses a variety of techniques with attendant advantages and disadvantages. Conclusions: Some immediate implant protocols require no mucoperiosteal flap and possibly produce the most favorable clinical and patient‐centered outcomes compared with other extraction socket management approaches. Conversely, guided bone regeneration at dental extraction sites can result in substantial gains in alveolar ridge dimensions, although this treatment may adversely influence mucosal architecture and carry increased risk of postoperative morbidity. When favorable bone and mucosa are present at a dental extraction site, immediate implant placement may be the treatment of choice, barring unusual circumstances. Ridge preservation, typically associated with minimal postoperative morbidity, is a rational second choice when acceptable ridge dimensions are anticipated after healing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Methods and Results Conclusions Key points Current evidence acknowledges guided bone regeneration (GBR) as a predictable therapeutic modality in the augmentation of a deficient alveolar ridge. Such deficiencies often reveal inadequate bone volume to support implant placement in a position amenable to prosthetic reconstruction. Additionally, an evolving body of literature demonstrates that membrane fixation may lead to improved clinical bone gain through positively influencing blood clot formation, stability, and the eventual osteogenic potential of the defect. Alternative benefits to membrane fixation, such as reduced graft displacement and reduction in wound micromotion, have also been cited as mechanisms for an increased regenerative response.The aim of this report was to present a case, including diagnosis, treatment, and follow‐up for the reconstruction of a horizontal ridge deficiency. The patient's deficiency in ridge volume was found to be a developmental sequelae of lateral incisor agenesis, resulting in an underdeveloped midfacial region of the alveolar process subjacent to sites #7 and #10. The fixation protocol outlined in this report demonstrated adequate horizontal ridge augmentation to facilitate future prosthetic reconstruction with the use of implants.Numerous protocols have been established in an attempt to achieve effective barrier membrane stabilization for bone augmentation procedures. However, some techniques are poorly suited for the anatomically challenging region of the anterior maxilla. A case report describing the utilization of the anterior nasal spine for anchorage of a membrane‐stabilizing suture may present a novel, safe, and effective technique for stabilizing the intended region of augmentation, as well as preventing graft migration beyond the membrane–maxilla interface. Regarding guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures, micromotion of the membrane or of the underlying particulate graft may negatively influence the volume of the augmented site. The ability to adequately stabilize the graft–membrane interface is recognized as a necessary prerequisite to predictably achieve optimal surgical outcomes. To the authors’ knowledge, there is no clinical or scientific evidence regarding the use of the anterior nasal spine for membrane anchorage in maxillary GBR procedures, and thus a novel approach to membrane stabilization is introduced. Regarding guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures, micromotion of the membrane or of the underlying particulate graft may negatively influence the volume of the augmented site.The ability to adequately stabilize the graft–membrane interface is recognized as a necessary prerequisite to predictably achieve optimal surgical outcomes.To the authors’ knowledge, there is no clinical or scientific evidence regarding the use of the anterior nasal spine for membrane anchorage in maxillary GBR procedures, and thus a novel approach to membrane stabilization is introduced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]