scholarly journals Volumetric changes following ridge preservation or spontaneous healing and early implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 484-494 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadja Naenni ◽  
Stefan P. Bienz ◽  
Fernando Muñoz ◽  
Christoph H. F. Hämmerle ◽  
Ronald E. Jung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Ridge Preservation ◽  
Spontaneous Healing ◽  
Implant Placement

scholarly journals Management of Retrograde Peri-Implantitis Using an Air-Abrasive Device, Er,Cr:YSGG Laser, and Guided Bone Regeneration

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolaos Soldatos ◽  
Georgios E. Romanos ◽  
Michelle Michaiel ◽  
Ali Sajadi ◽  
Nikola Angelov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Bone Density ◽  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Etiologic Factor ◽  
Ridge Preservation ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Case Description ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Maxillary Molar

Background. The placement of an implant in a previously infected site is an important etiologic factor contributing to implant failure. The aim of this case report is to present the management of retrograde peri-implantitis (RPI) in a first maxillary molar site, 2 years after the implant placement. The RPI was treated using an air-abrasive device, Er,Cr:YSGG laser, and guided bone regeneration (GBR). Case Description. A 65-year-old Caucasian male presented with a draining fistula associated with an implant at tooth #3. Tooth #3 revealed periapical radiolucency two years before the implant placement. Tooth #3 was extracted, and a ridge preservation procedure was performed followed by implant rehabilitation. A periapical radiograph (PA) showed lack of bone density around the implant apex. The site was decontaminated with an air-abrasive device and Er,Cr:YSGG laser, and GBR was performed. The patient was seen every two weeks until suture removal, followed by monthly visits for 12 months. The periapical X-rays, from 6 to 13 months postoperatively, showed increased bone density around the implant apex, with no signs of residual clinical or radiographic pathology and probing depths ≤4 mm. Conclusions. The etiology of RPI in this case was the placement of an implant in a previously infected site. The use of an air-abrasive device, Er,Cr:YSGG, and GBR was utilized to treat this case of RPI. The site was monitored for 13 months, and increased radiographic bone density was noted.

scholarly journals Implant Site Guided Bone Regeneration and Pontic Site Ridge Preservation: A Case Report

PRILOZI ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-108
Author(s):  
Darko Veljanovski ◽  
Denis Baftijari ◽  
Zoran Susak ◽  
Aneta Atanasovska Stojanovska
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Soft Tissues ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Autogenous Bone ◽  
Collagen Membrane ◽  
Ridge Preservation ◽  
Bovine Bone ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Barrier Membrane

Abstract Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is a therapeutic modality to achieve bone regeneration with the use of barrier membranes. The use of deproteinized bovine bone material (DBBM) for ridge preservation allows the preservation of the edentulous ridge dimensions. Here, we present a case of horizontal GBR using DBBM and a resorbable membrane, with simultaneous implant placement. Simultaneously, ridge preservation of the pontic area, using DBBM within a “socket seal” procedure was performed. Two implants were places at sites 23 and 26 to support a fixed partial denture (FPD). The mesial implant showed exposed buccal threads, which were then covered with autogenous bone particles and small size granules of DBBM. The collagen membrane was stabilized with periosteal mattress suture. Six months postoperatively, CBCT images revealed a stable buccal bone layer at the implant site, indicating a successful GBR procedure. At this point in time, tooth 24 was atraumatically extracted. A ridge preservation was done utilizing DBBM, and a soft tissue graft form the tuber. A ceramic-metal FPD with excellent “white aesthetics” and a harmonic transition zone to the soft tissue was fabricated. At 3 years follow up, the peri-implant bone levels were stable, and the clinical outcomes were excellent. It is concluded that a GBR procedure, utilizing DBBM and a collagen barrier membrane with simultaneous implant placement, as well as ridge preservation using DBBM, are predictable therapeutic methods. However, gentle manipulation of the soft tissues, and wound stability, with tension-free passive closure of the wound margins are prerequisites for a long-term clinical success.

Guided bone regeneration for immediate non-submerged implant placement using bioabsorbable materials in Beagle dogs

1998 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 303-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gérard Brunel ◽  
Edmond Benqué ◽  
Frédéric Elharar ◽  
Catherine Sansac ◽  
Jean François Duffort ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Beagle Dogs ◽  
Implant Placement

scholarly journals Collagen vs expanded polytetrafluorethylene membranes during guided-bone regeneration simultaneous with implant placement – a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 59
Author(s):  
Sales Antônio Barbosa Junior ◽  
Angélica Maroli ◽  
Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira ◽  
Atais Bacchi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Implant Placement

Objetivo: Esta revisão sistemática avaliou a influência do tipo de membrana (colágeno reabsorvível ou politetrafluoretileno expandido não reabsorvível; e-PTFE) na regeneração óssea guia associada à colocação do implante. Métodos: Qualquer tipo de estudo clínico ou revisão de literatura foi pesquisada nas bases de dados MEDLINE / PubMed e Cochrane. Dois revisores independentes examinaram títulos / resumos de artigos e o texto completo de estudos potencialmente elegíveis. Quando os dados estavam disponíveis, a meta-análise pareada foi realizada usando modelo estatístico aleatório. Resultados: Nove estudos preencheram os critérios de inclusão, considerando 685 implantes em 360 pacientes. A regeneração óssea vertical não diferiu com o uso das duas membranas em 8 dos 9 estudos incluídos. Meta-análise não mostrou maior ganho ósseo vertical ou perda óssea vertical após a regeneração com qualquer uma das membranas. Os resultados mostraram uma tendência de maior ganho ósseo na regeneração óssea guiada horizontal com membranas de e-PTFE não reabsorvíveis (relatadas por 2 de 3 estudos). Todos os estudos mostraram claramente que ambas as membranas foram eficazes no aumento do volume ósseo. Não houve uma tendência clara de qualquer uma das duas membranas em causar mais complicações. Conclusão: o colágeno reabsorvível e as membranas não-reabsorvíveis de PTFE-e são igualmente eficazes na regeneração óssea guiada vertical; no entanto, a regeneração óssea guiada horizontal parece se beneficiar com o uso das membranas não reabsorvíveis. Ambas as membranas mostraram-se eficazes na regeneração óssea guiada e similares em relação às complicações.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document