Search

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., (Published 2023. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Purpose: Our purpose was to assess the frequency and impact of various site development procedures provided before, during, and after implant placement in an advanced dental education program., Methods: We evaluated all implant cases completed by two residents in each of three consecutive periodontics residency classes. Dependent variables included implant failure, complication occurrence, presence of radiographic bone loss, and need for tissue augmentation. We analyzed these outcomes against a panel of explanatory covariates., Results: Our study sample involved 370 site development procedures at 290 implant sites in 160 patients. Three factors exhibited statistically significant associations with need for tissue augmentation: alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) (odds ratio [OR] 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13, 0.57), immediate implant placement (IIP) (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.10, 0.47), and implant submergence (OR 8.3; 95% CI 4.5, 15.3). Four factors predicted treatment complications: ARP (OR 6.1; 95% CI 1.3, 29.1), IIP (OR 6.1; 95% CI 1.06, 35.3), implant submergence (OR 5.3; 95% CI 1.1, 24.9), and mandibular arch (OR 31.3; 95% CI 1.9, 500). Anterior sites (OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.3, 5.8) were more likely to receive IIP., Conclusions: In the evaluated sample, implant placement at a site exhibiting a favorable volume of native bone was rare. Seventy-eight percent of sites received hard tissue grafting during the treatment phase. The use of ARP or IIP at tooth extraction reduced subsequent tissue augmentation requirements. Education and training in ARP and other site development procedures may enhance the clinical practice and treatment outcomes of implant surgeons., (Published 2022. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Objective: The objective of this study was to illustrate the efficacy of a novel imaging analysis technology to capture horizontal and vertical dimensional changes following horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation (HRA)., Methods: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) volumes from 65 HRA sites in 57 patients were available for evaluation, employing a three-dimensional analysis software to overlay preoperative and post-augmentation CBCT volumes. Horizontal and vertical alveolar ridge dimensional (HRD/VRD) changes were recorded considering a panel of patient-, site-, and procedure-related explanatory variables., Results: VRD changes ranged from -2.9 to 3.0 mm, more than half anterior sites losing alveolar ridge height. Mean HRD increase at the 3- and 5-mm levels apical to the alveolar crest amounted to 2.3±1.6 and 2.4±1.3 mm, respectively, membrane fixation and non-resorbable membrane use associated with significantly greater gains., Conclusions: To date, studies reporting dimensional changes following HRA predominantly rely on serial in situ orofacial caliper recordings omitting vertical alterations. The protocol employed in this study allows simultaneous HRD and VRD evaluations and assures baseline and post-augmentation recordings are made at the same alveolar ridge position. Compared with in situ recording, CBCT overlay analysis may achieve a more complete characterization of dimensional changes following HRA.

Introduction: The epithelialized palatal graft (EPG), introduced in 1963, has persisted as the gold standard for gingival augmentation, and in the present era, mucosal augmentation around dental implants has become an important concern. A limited body of evidence suggests peri-implant mucosal augmentation may favorably impact bone and mucosal stability and peri-implant health under some circumstances. Although more contemporary procedures for peri-implant mucosal augmentation are often preferred based on convenience and esthetic considerations, EPG augmentation at dental implant sites is distinguishable from methods which do not deepen the vestibule and eliminate unfavorable superficial soft tissue. Implant sites augmented with EPG are qualitatively distinct from sites augmented using other methods., Case Series: Seven generally healthy patients received EPG augmentation before dental implant placement, at implant placement, before implant uncovering, or after implant uncovering. In each case, the patient exhibited a favorable zone of attached peri-implant mucosa following treatment., Conclusions: Reliable mucosal augmentation with EPG is achievable at multiple phases in the course of dental implant therapy. EPG augmentation offers distinct clinical advantages and may be preferable to other mucosal augmentation strategies at some dental implant sites., (© 2019 American Academy of Periodontology.)

Background: Crestal bone thickness is a critical determinant of peri-implant tissue stability. This retrospective observational study sought to quantify the buccal bone thickness achieved adjacent to virtual dental implants following guided bone regeneration (GBR) surgery and evaluate the influence of patient- and procedure-related variables on buccal bone thickness., Methods: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images acquired from patients who had undergone GBR surgery between July 1, 2012, and November 7, 2016, were used for this analysis. In all cases, the GBR procedure involved a dense polytetrafluoroethylene (dPTFE) barrier membrane and a mineralized cortical particulate freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA). Eighty-four virtual dental implants were placed at planned locations using CBCT images from 84 patients, and the adjacent buccal bone thickness was measured at each site. The effects of sex, age, estimated baseline ridge width, number of missing teeth in site, site type (tooth-bounded versus terminal position in arch), dental arch (mandibular or maxillary), arch location (anterior or posterior), smoking status, titanium reinforcement in the membrane, membrane fixation, and tenting screw use were assessed., Results: The mean post-GBR buccal bone thickness adjacent to virtual dental implants was 2.24 ± 1.01 mm. Fifty-nine of 84 virtual implants (70%) exhibited buccal bone thickness > 1.9 mm. GBR sites using membrane fixation produced significantly greater virtual implant buccal bone thickness than those without membrane fixation (2.31 ± 0.96 versus 1.15 ± 1.25 mm, P = 0.012). Virtual implant buccal bone thickness also exhibited moderate correlation with estimated initial ridge width (r = 0.43, P < 0.0001). The alveolar ridge at 81 virtual implant sites (96%) was classified as good or satisfactory, meaning dental implants were actually placed at these sites, with or without additional grafting at implant placement., Conclusions: Observations in this study suggest GBR procedures using dPTFE membranes and FDBA result in favorable ridge dimensions for dental implant placement in most cases. However, additional augmentation at implant surgery may be necessary at ≈ 30% of sites, if buccal bone thickness > 1.9 mm is intended., (© Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

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., (© 2018 American Academy of Periodontology.)

Objectives: In periodontology, it is widely recognized that evidence characterizing the incidence and effect of treatment complications is lacking. The objective of this study was to assess the influence of operator‐, procedure‐, patient‐, and site‐associated factors on intraoperative and postoperative complication occurrence. Material and Methods: A single investigator reviewed records of patients treated by eight periodontics residents from July 2018 through June 2022. For each procedure, the investigator recorded each intraoperative and postoperative complication or indicated that no complication had occurred. These outcomes were analyzed against a panel of explanatory covariates. In addition, the severity of each postoperative complication was assessed using a standardized grading system. Results: A total of 1135 procedures were included in the analysis. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were identified in 2.8% and 15.2% of procedures, respectively. The most common intraoperative complications were Schneiderian membrane perforation (1.3%) and gingival flap perforation/tear (1%), and the most common postoperative complications were dentin hypersensitivity (2.6%), excessive pain (2.5%), and infection (2.2%). Subepithelial connective tissue graft (odds ratio [OR]: 3.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6, 6.1; p <.001), guided bone regeneration (OR: 3.0, 95% CI: 1.4, 6.5; p =.004), and guided bone regeneration with implant placement (OR: 3.1, 95% CI: 1.3, 7.6; p =.011) were associated with higher odds of postoperative complication, whereas lateral sinus elevation (OR: 102.5, 95% CI: 12.3, 852.9; p <.001), transalveolar sinus elevation (OR: 22.4, 95% CI: 2.2, 224.5; p =.008), open flap debridement (OR: 36.4, 95% CI: 3.0, 440.7; p =.005), and surgically facilitated orthodontic therapy (OR: 20.5, 95% CI: 1.2, 358.4; p =.039) were associated with higher odds of intraoperative complication occurrence. Conclusions: Consistent with previous reports, procedure type appears to be the predominant factor driving complication occurrence. As analyses of treatment complications increase, individualized risk‐benefit assessments will become progressively meaningful for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this study was to illustrate the efficacy of a novel imaging analysis technology to capture horizontal and vertical dimensional changes following horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation (HRA). Methods: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) volumes from 65 HRA sites in 57 patients were available for evaluation, employing a three-dimensional analysis software to overlay preoperative and post-augmentation CBCT volumes. Horizontal and vertical alveolar ridge dimensional (HRD/VRD) changes were recorded considering a panel of patient-, site-, and procedure-related explanatory variables. Results: VRD changes ranged from -2.9 to 3.0 mm, more than half anterior sites losing alveolar ridge height. Mean HRD increase at the 3- and 5-mm levels apical to the alveolar crest amounted to 2.3±1.6 and 2.4±1.3 mm, respectively, membrane fixation and non-resorbable membrane use associated with significantly greater gains. Conclusions: To date, studies reporting dimensional changes following HRA predominantly rely on serial in situ orofacial caliper recordings omitting vertical alterations. The protocol employed in this study allows simultaneous HRD and VRD evaluations and assures baseline and post-augmentation recordings are made at the same alveolar ridge position. Compared with in situ recording, CBCT overlay analysis may achieve a more complete characterization of dimensional changes following HRA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Continuous and interrupted sling sutures (ISSs) are used around teeth in contemporary periodontics. However, conventional ISSs depend upon favorable tooth morphology for stability through the early healing period. The purpose of this report is to present a variation of the classic ISS that does not rely on favorable tooth morphology. Case Series: Tissue‐supported sling sutures (TSSs) were used for six patients undergoing root coverage, gingival augmentation, or pontic site development (guided bone regeneration) procedures. Conclusions: Although techniques such as vertical mattress suturing may support greater coronal flap advancement, the TSS technique does maintain coronal flap position while minimizing trauma to papillae. TSS stability is independent of tooth morphology and may offer clinicians flexibility in achieving reliable closure over hard and soft tissue implants. Like mattress sutures, TSSs reduce tension at the crestal incision line in tissue grafting procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Minimally invasive surgical techniques in periodontics, including methods for ridge augmentation, have been shown to achieve surgical goals while minimizing swelling, decreasing postoperative discomfort, and enhancing soft tissue architecture. The present case illustrates a minimally invasive guided bone regeneration technique for augmentation of a deficient alveolar ridge in the esthetic zone. Case Presentation: A 30‐year‐old patient received localized ridge augmentation utilizing tunnel access for guided bone regeneration with a dense polytetrafluoroethylene membrane and a freeze‐dried bone allograft. The patient experienced minimal postoperative swelling and discomfort, and the procedure resulted in favorable ridge dimensions for implant placement. Conclusions: The tunnel access for guided bone regeneration presented in this case may offer advantages similar to other minimally invasive ridge augmentation techniques. Further controlled clinical study is warranted. [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]