AMEI's Current Trends in Diagnosis & Treatment

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  7 (2023)
Volume  6 (2022)
Volume  5 (2021)
Volume  4 (2020)
Volume  3 (2019)
Volume  2 (2018)
Volume  1 (2017)
Related articles

VOLUME 5 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2021 ) > List of Articles

CASE REPORT

Rehabilitation of Deficient Anterior Maxilla with Three Novel Techniques: A Case Report

Sarika Kapila, Ramandeep S Bhullar, Harsh D Singh

Keywords : Atrophic maxilla, Autogenous block graft, Implant-supported prosthesis, Osseodensification

Citation Information : Kapila S, Bhullar RS, Singh HD. Rehabilitation of Deficient Anterior Maxilla with Three Novel Techniques: A Case Report. Curr Trends Diagn Treat 2021; 5 (1):48-52.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10055-0119

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-00-0000

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Abstract

An implant-supported prosthesis offers a more predictable course of treatment as compared to other options available for rehabilitating edentulous arches and dental implants are a more acceptable treatment option to the dental fraternity and the public. Atrophic maxilla can be managed well utilizing autogenous bone grafts from intraoral donor sites, and the primary objective of this case was to use osseodensification as a means of acquiring more bone volume/density. We combined the use of three techniques, i.e., autogenous bone graft from symphysis, osseodensification drilling for implant placement, and Toronto prosthesis for rehabilitation of atrophic maxilla in a 35-year-old male patient. After 1 year of follow-up, the implant-based prosthesis is working well without any complication and established that autograft followed by osseodensification and rehabilitation with Toronto bridge gives good results. Block grafting followed by implant placement with osseodensification technique and Toronto prosthesis yielded great aesthetics and functional results.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Huwais S, Meyer EG. A novel osseous densification approach in implant osteotomy preparation to increase biomechanical primary stability, bone mineral density, and bone-to-implant contact. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32(1):27–36. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.4817.
  2. Naruse KI, Fukuda M, Hasegawa H, et al. Advanced alveolar bone resorption treated with implants, guided bone regeneration, and synthetic grafting: a case report. Implant Dent 2010;19(6):460–467. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181fce1a9.
  3. Misch CM, Misch CE, Resnik RR, et al. Reconstruction of maxillary alveolar defects with mandibular symphysis grafts for dental implants: a preliminary procedural report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7(3):360–366. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1289262/
  4. Brånemark PI, Lindström J, Hallen O, et al. Reconstruction of the defective mandible. Scand J Plast Reconstruct Surg 1975;9(2):116–128. DOI: 10.3109/02844317509022776.
  5. Greenberg JA, Wiltz MJ, Kraut RA. Augmentation of the anterior maxilla with intraoral onlay grafts for implant placement. Implant Dent 2012;21(1):21–24. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3182435ffd.
  6. Witek L, Neiva R, Alifarag A, et al. Absence of healing impairment in osteotomies prepared via osseodensification drilling. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2019;39(1):65–71. DOI: 10.11607/prd.3504.
  7. Sultana A, Makkar S, Saxena D, et al. To compare the stability and crestal bone loss of implants placed using osseodensification and traditional drilling protocol: a clinicoradiographical study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2020;20(1):45–51. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_133_19.
  8. Montero J, de Paula CM, Albaladejo A. The “Toronto prosthesis”, an appealing method for restoring patients candidates for hybrid overdentures: a case report. J Clin Exp Dent 2012;4(5):e309–e312. DOI: 10.4317/jced.50877.
  9. Cawood JI, Howell RA. Reconstructive preprosthetic surgery: I.Anatomical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;20(2):75–82. DOI: 10.1016/s0901-5027(05)80711-8.
  10. Bassetti MA, Bassetti RG, Bosshardt DD. The alveolar ridge splitting/expansion technique: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27(3):310–324. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12537.
  11. Guimarães GM, Bernini GF, Grandizoli DK, et al. Evaluation of bone availability for grafts in different donor areas, through computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;48:51. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2019.03.155.
  12. Schwartz-Arad D, Levin L. Symphysis revisited: clinical and histologic evaluation of newly formed bone and reharvesting potential of previously used symphysial donor sites for onlay bone grafting. J Periodontol 2009;80(5):865–869. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2009.080602.
  13. Reininger D, Cobo-Vázquez C, Monteserín-Matesanz M, et al. Complications in the use of the mandibular body, ramus and symphysis as donor sites in bone graft surgery. A systematic review. Med oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2016;21(2):e241–e249. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.20938.
  14. Altiparmak N, Soydan SS, Uçkan S. The effect of conventional surgery and piezoelectric surgery bone harvesting techniques on the donor site morbidity of the mandibular ramus and symphysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;44(9):1131–1137. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2015.04.009.
  15. Sanz-Sánchez I, Ortiz-Vigón A, Sanz-Martín I, et al. Effectiveness of lateral bone augmentation on the alveolar crest dimension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2015;94(9_suppl):128S–142S. DOI: 10.1177/0022034515594780.
  16. Antoun H, Sitbon JM, Martinez H, et al. A prospective randomized study comparing two techniques of bone augmentation: onlay graft alone or associated with a membrane. Clin oral Implants Res 2001;12(6):632–639. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120612.x.
  17. Mendoza‐Azpur G, de la Fuente A, Chavez E, et al. Horizontal ridge augmentation with guided bone regeneration using particulate xenogenic bone substitutes with or without autogenous block grafts: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21(4):521–530. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12740.
  18. Kim YK, Ku JK. Ridge augmentation in implant dentistry. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020;46(3):211–217. DOI: 10.5125/jkaoms.2020.46.3.211.
  19. Pai UY, Rodrigues SJ, Talreja KS, et al. Osseodensification–a novel approach in implant dentistry. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018;18(3):196–200. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_292_17.
  20. Gaikwad AM, Joshi AA, Nadgere JB. Biomechanical and histomorphometric analysis of endosteal implants placed by using the osseodensification technique in animal models: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthe Dent 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.07.004.
  21. Koutouzis T, Huwais S, Hasan F, et al. Alveolar ridge expansion by osseodensification-mediated plastic deformation and compaction autografting: a multicenter retrospective study. Implant Dent 2019;28(4):349–355. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000898.
  22. Uludag B, Ozturk O, Celik G, et al. Fabrication of a retrievable cement-and screw-retained implant-supported zirconium fixed partial denture: a case report. J Oral Implantol 2008;34(1):59–62. DOI: 10.1563/1548-1336(2008)34[59:FOARCA]2.0.CO;2.
  23. Rajan M, Gunaseelan R. Fabrication of a cement-and screw-retained implant prosthesis. J Prosthe Dent 2004;92(6):578–580. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.09.009.
  24. Cicciù M, Risitano G, Maiorana C, et al. Parametric analysis of the strength in the “Toronto” osseous-prosthesis system. Minerva Stomatol 2009;58(1–2):9–23. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19234433/
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.