Dataset Information

Horizontal Ridge Augmentation Using a Xenograft Bone Substitute for Implant-Supported Fixed Rehabilitation: A Case Report with Four Years of Follow-Up.

ABSTRACT: The guided bone regeneration (GBR) technique has been used to achieve optimal bone volume augmentation and allow dental implant placement in atrophic maxilla and mandible, with predictable results and high survival rates. The use of bone substitutes has reduced the necessity of autogenous bone grafts, reducing the morbidity at the donor areas and thus improving the patients' satisfaction and comfort. This clinical case report shows a clinical and histological evaluation of the bone tissue behavior, in a case that required the horizontal augmentation of the alveolar ridge, with the use of xenograft biomaterial and further dental implant placement. After six months of healing time, six implants were placed, and a bone biopsy was done. The histological analysis depicted some fragments of the xenograft bone graft, integrated with the new-formed bone tissue.

SUBMITTER: Mello BF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7245675 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Horizontal Ridge Augmentation Using a Xenograft Bone Substitute for Implant-Supported Fixed Rehabilitation: A Case Report with Four Years of Follow-Up.

Mello Bruno Freitas BF de Carvalho Formiga Márcio M de Souza da Silva Luiz Fernando LF Dos Santos Coura Gustavo G Shibli Jamil Awad JA

Case reports in dentistry 20200514

The guided bone regeneration (GBR) technique has been used to achieve optimal bone volume augmentation and allow dental implant placement in atrophic maxilla and mandible, with predictable results and high survival rates. The use of bone substitutes has reduced the necessity of autogenous bone grafts, reducing the morbidity at the donor areas and thus improving the patients' satisfaction and comfort. This clinical case report shows a clinical and histological evaluation of the bone tissue behavi ...[more]

PMID: 32509356

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited information on the need for bone augmentation in the context of delayed implant placement whether alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is previously performed or not. The primary aim of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the efficacy of ARP therapy after tooth extraction compared with unassisted socket healing (USH) in reducing the need for ancillary bone augmentation before or at the time of implant placement.MethodsAdult subjects that underwent non-molar single tooth extraction with or without simultaneous ARP therapy were included in this study. Cone beam computed tomography scans obtained before tooth extraction and after a variable healing period were used to record the baseline facial bone thickness and to virtually plan implant placement according to a standard method. A logistic regression model was used to evaluate the effect of facial alveolar bone thickness upon tooth extraction and baseline therapy (USH or ARP) on the need for additional bone augmentation, adjusting for several covariates (i.e., age, sex, baseline KMW, and tooth type).ResultsOne hundred and forty subjects that were equally distributed between both baseline therapy groups constituted the study population. Implant placement was deemed virtually feasible in all study sites. Simultaneous bone augmentation was considered necessary in 60% and 11.4% of the sites in the USH and ARP group, respectively. Most of these sites (64.2% in the USH group and 87.5% in the ARP group) exhibited a thin facial bone phenotype (<1 mm) at baseline. Logistic regression revealed that the odds of not needing ancillary bone augmentation were 17.8 times higher in sites that received ARP therapy. Furthermore, the need for additional bone augmentation was reduced 7.7 times for every 1 mm increase in facial bone thickness, regardless of baseline therapy.ConclusionsBased on a digital analysis, ARP therapy, compared with USH, and thick facial alveolar bone largely reduce the need for ancillary bone augmentation at the time of implant placement in non-molar sites.

Project description:ObjectivesSingle denture rehabilitated patients have negative appraisals regarding oral function, mostly associated by stability and retention issues regarding mandibular prosthetics. Therefore, this study assessed patients' occlusal equilibration, muscle activity, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) receiving milled removable or fixed mandibular implant retained prostheses.Materials and methodsTwenty-two edentulous mandibular ridges patients were randomly distributed into two groups based on the definitive prosthesis received. Group I: Removable mandibular implant-supported overdenture, Group II: Implant retained fixed prosthesis. Occlusal equilibration was evaluated utilizing Occlusense, muscle activity via Electromyograph (EMG) at delivery, after one, and three months. The OHRQoL was evaluated by Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaire (OHIP-19) before delivery and after follow-ups. Data were collected, tabulated, and analyzed, utilizing independent t-test and One-way ANOVA followed Tukey`s post-hoc test. Significance level set at P ≤ 0.05.ResultsGroups I &II showed significant improvement in occlusal equilibration, muscle activity and OHRQoL. Group II demonstrated significantly higher improvement than group I in occlusal equilibration associated with muscle activity after 1 month, and in functional limitations domain in OHRQoL questionnaire after 3 months.ConclusionImplant retained mandibular prosthesis showed improvement in occlusal equilibration, muscle activity, and OHRQoL regardless of prosthesis type employed. Fixed implant-supported prosthesis revealed better outcomes than removable mandibular implant-supported overdenture concerning occlusal equilibration, muscle activity, and OHRQoL regarding functional limitations.Clinical relevanceImplant retained mandibular prosthesis is one of best treatment options for single mandibular completely edentulous patients, as dental implants improved occlusal equilibration, muscle activity, and OHRQoL.

Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review was to analyze post-loading implant loss for implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws, regarding a potential impact of implant location (maxilla vs. mandible), implant number per patient, type of prosthesis (removable vs. fixed), and type of attachment system (screw-retained, ball vs. bar vs. telescopic crown).Material and methodsA systematic literature search for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies was conducted within PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Quality assessment of the included studies was carried out, and the review was structured according to PRISMA. Implant loss and corresponding 3- and 5-year survival rates were estimated by means of a Poisson regression model with total exposure time as offset.ResultsAfter title, abstract, and full-text screening, 54 studies were included for qualitative analyses. Estimated 5-year survival rates of implants were 97.9% [95% CI 97.4; 98.4] in the maxilla and 98.9% [95% CI 98.7; 99.1] in the mandible. Corresponding implant loss rates per 100 implant years were significantly higher in the maxilla (0.42 [95% CI 0.33; 0.53] vs. 0.22 [95% CI 0.17; 0.27]; P = 0.0001). Implant loss rates for fixed restorations were significantly lower compared to removable restorations (0.23 [95% CI 0.18; 0.29] vs. 0.35 [95% CI 0.28; 0.44]; P = 0.0148). Four implants and a fixed restoration in the mandible resulted in significantly higher implant loss rates compared to five or more implants with a fixed restoration. The analysis of one implant and a mandibular overdenture also revealed higher implant loss rates than an overdenture on two implants. The same (lower implant number = higher implant loss rate) applied when comparing 2 vs. 4 implants and a mandibular overdenture. Implant loss rates for maxillary overdentures on <4 implants were significantly higher than for four implants (7.22 [95% CI 5.41; 9.64] vs. 2.31 [1.56; 3.42]; P < 0.0001).ConclusionsImplant location, type of restoration, and implant number do have an influence on the estimated implant loss rate. Consistent reporting of clinical studies is necessary and high-quality studies are needed to confirm the present results.

Dataset Information

Horizontal Ridge Augmentation Using a Xenograft Bone Substitute for Implant-Supported Fixed Rehabilitation: A Case Report with Four Years of Follow-Up.

Publications

Horizontal Ridge Augmentation Using a Xenograft Bone Substitute for Implant-Supported Fixed Rehabilitation: A Case Report with Four Years of Follow-Up.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets