| Literature DB >> 32932942 |
Dorottya Pénzes1, Fanni Simon1, Eitan Mijiritsky2, Orsolya Németh1, Márton Kivovics1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alveolar atrophy following tooth loss is a common limitation of rehabilitation with dental implant born prostheses. Ridge splitting is a well-documented surgical method to restore the width of the alveolar ridge prior to implant placement. The aim of this case series is to present a novel approach to ridge expansion using only autogenous bone blocks.Entities:
Keywords: alveolar bone loss; bone transplantation; dental implantation; mandibular ridge augmentation; piezo surgery
Year: 2020 PMID: 32932942 PMCID: PMC7559992 DOI: 10.3390/ma13184036
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Clinical illustration of the surgical procedure of the modified ridge splitting. (A) Preoperative view of the atrophied alveolar ridge. (B) Full thickness flap preparation. (C) Buccal view of the osteotomies and the corticotomy. (D) The autologous bone block graft placed in the recipient site. (E) The graft was stabilized with osteosynthesis screws. (F) Tension free primary closure.
Pre- and postoperative measurements of the alveolar ridges, and the characteristics of the inserted implants (A—Need for secondary augmentation, B—Buccal cortical plate fractured during the ridge splitting procedure) (MR—right side of the mandible, ML—left side of the mandible).
| Patients | AGE | SEX (M = Male, F = Female) | Surgical Area | Preoperative Measurement | Postoperative Measurement | Ridge Width Gain | Position of the Implants | Diameter and Length of the Implants (mm) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 mm | 10 mm | 15 mm | 3 mm | 10 mm | 15 mm | 3 mm | 10 mm | 15 mm | ||||||
| Patient 1 | 56 | M | ML | 5.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 8.0 | 6.0 | 0.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 36 | 3.5 × 10 |
| 37 | 4.3 × 10 | |||||||||||||
| MR | 5.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 44 | 3.5 × 10 | |||
| 46 | 3.5 × 8 | |||||||||||||
| Patient 2 A | 77 | F | MR | 7.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 45 | 3.5 × 10 |
| 46 | 3.5 × 10 | |||||||||||||
| Patient 3 B | 44 | F | MR | 5.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 9.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 45 | 3.5 × 10 |
| 46 | 4.3 × 10 | |||||||||||||
| Patient 4 | 57 | F | ML | 4.0 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 9.0 | 7.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 36 | 4.3 × 8 |
| Patient 5 | 70 | F | MR | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 45 | 3.5 × 8 |
| 46 | 3.5 × 8 | |||||||||||||
| Patient 6 | 42 | F | MR | 4.0 | 6.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 44 | 4.3 × 11.5 |
| 46 | 4.3 × 11.5 | |||||||||||||
| Mean | - | - | - | 4.86 | 4.71 | 5.14 | 6.57 | 7.57 | 7.29 | 1.71 | 2.86 | 2.14 | - | - |