The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2019 ) > List of Articles

CASE REPORT

Implant Rehabilitation Partial Maxillary Edentulism with Onlay Autogenous Chin Bone Grafting and Prosthetic Gingival Restoration: A Case Report

Violeta Malpartida-Carrillo, Pedro L Tinedo-Lôpez, Fernando Ortiz-Culca, Alejandro Cornejo-García, Maria E Guerrero, Silvia P Amaya-Pajares

Keywords : Alveolar bone grafting, Alveolar bone loss, Bone regeneration, Dental implants

Citation Information : Malpartida-Carrillo V, Tinedo-Lôpez PL, Ortiz-Culca F, Cornejo-García A, Guerrero ME, Amaya-Pajares SP. Implant Rehabilitation Partial Maxillary Edentulism with Onlay Autogenous Chin Bone Grafting and Prosthetic Gingival Restoration: A Case Report. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (7):851-856.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2610

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-07-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Background: Atrophic anterior maxilla rehabilitation can be a challenging procedure due to multiple factors that influence clinical decision making. After a prolonged loss of teeth, the residual bone often impedes the use of standard implant placement protocols and additional procedures are needed. Aim: The aim of this study is to describe the multidisciplinary approach for the diagnosis and treatment of a 50-year-old woman with prolonged use of a removable maxillary partial denture. Case Description: This article presents a full-mouth-phased rehabilitation of an atrophic anterior maxilla with three surgical stages. First, onlay autogenous chin bone grafting was used to return the lost tissue. After the consolidation, dental implants were placed in a second stage. A few months later, a connective tissue graft was used to improve the keratinized mucosa width. In the mentioned stages, leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) was used to improve healing and promote tissue regeneration. Finally, prosthetic gingival restoration was used in the anterior region as an alternative to overcome the limitations of hard- and soft-tissue grafting. Conclusion: The use of autogenous grafts obtained from the chin in combination with xenograft and then covered with an absorbable collagen membrane represents a predictable procedure for the rehabilitation of the long-term partial maxillary edentulism. Prosthetic gingival restoration is an alternative technique to overcome the limitations of hard- and soft-tissue grafting. Clinical significance: The treatment of a patient with high and width alveolar bone loss needs a multidisciplinary approach. Autogenous grafts obtained from the chin in combination with xenograft and then covered with an absorbable collagen membrane represent an effective procedure. Also, prosthetic gingival restoration can be used as an alternative technique to overcome the limitations of hard- and soft-tissue grafting.


PDF Share
  1. Schropp L, Wenzel A, et al. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003 Aug;23(4):313–323.
  2. van der Weijden F, Dell'Acqua F, et al. Alveolar bone dimensional changes of post-extraction sockets in humans: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2009 Dec;36(12):1048–1058. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01482.x.
  3. Gerritsen AE, Allen PF, et al. Tooth loss and oral health-related quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010 Nov;5(6):1–11. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-8-126.
  4. Sailer I, Mühlemann S, et al. Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012 Oct;23(6):163–201. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02538.x.
  5. Wittneben JG, Millen C, et al. Clinical performance of screw-vs cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions—a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29(Suppl):84–98. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g2.1.
  6. Shabestari GO, Shayesteh YS, et al. Implant placement in patients with oral bisphosphonate therapy: a case series. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010 Sep;12(3):175–180. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00150.x.
  7. McAllister BS, Haghighat K. Bone augmentation techniques. J Periodontol 2007 Mar;78(3):377–396. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2007.060048.
  8. Chiapasco M, Casentini P, et al. Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24(Suppl):237–259.
  9. Lumetti S, Galli C, et al. Correlation between density and resorption of fresh-frozen and autogenous bone grafts. Biomed Res Int 2014 Jun;508328:1–6. DOI: 10.1155/2014/508328.
  10. Santana RB, Santana CM. A clinical comparison of guided bone regeneration with platelet-derived growth factor-enhanced bone ceramic vs autogenous bone block grafting. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015 May;30(3):700–706. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3529.
  11. Chappuis V, Cavusoglu Y, et al. Lateral ridge augmentation using autogenous block grafts and guided bone regeneration: a 10-year prospective case series study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017 Feb;19(1):85–96. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12438.
  12. Jensen SS, Terheyden H. Bone augmentation procedures in localized defects in the alveolar ridge: clinical results with different bone grafts and bone-substitute materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24(Suppl):218–236.
  13. Cordaro L, Torsello F, et al. Effect of bovine bone and collagen membranes on healing of mandibular bone blocks: a prospective randomized controlled study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011 Oct;22(10):1145–1150. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02093.x.
  14. Galindo-Moreno P, Hernández-Cortéz P, et al. Morphological evidences of Bio-Oss® colonization by CD44-positive cells. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014 Mar;25(3):366–371. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12112.
  15. Elgali I, Omar O, et al. Guided bone regeneration: materials and biological mechanism revisited. Eur J Oral Sci 2017 Oct;125(5):315–337. DOI: 10.1111/eos.12364.
  16. Hernández-Alfaro F, Sancho-Puchades M, et al. Total reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla with intraoral bone grafts and biomaterials: a prospective clinical study with cone beam computed tomography validation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013 Jan;28(1):241–251. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2405.
  17. Gultekin BA, Bedeloglu E, et al. Comparison of bone resorption rates after intraoral block bone and guided bone regeneration augmentation for the reconstruction of horizontally deficient maxillary alveolar ridges. Biomed Res Int 2016 Oct;4987437:1–9. DOI: 10.1155/2016/4987437.
  18. Pieri F, Aldini NN, et al. Esthetic outcome and tissue stability of maxillary anterior single-tooth implants following reconstruction with mandibular block grafts: a 5-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013 Jan;28(1):270–280. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2560.
  19. Sammartino G, Dohan Ehrenfest DM, et al. Tissue engineering and dental implantology: biomaterials, new technologies, and stem cells. BioMed Res Int 2016 Mar;5713168:1–3. DOI: 10.1155/2016/5713168.
  20. Ibraheem W. Effect of platelet-rich fibrin and free gingival graft in the treatment of soft tissue defect preceding implant placement. J Contem Dent Pract 2018 Jul;19(7):895–899. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2353.
  21. Castro AB, Meschi N, et al. Regenerative potential of leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin. Part A: intra-bony defects, furcation defects and periodontal plastic surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 2017 Jan;44(1):67–82. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12643.
  22. Castro AB, Meschi N, et al. Regenerative potential of leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin. Part B: sinus floor elevation, alveolar ridge preservation and implant therapy. A systematic review. J Clin Peridontol 2017 Feb;44(2):225–234. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12658.
  23. Coachman C, Salama M, et al. Prosthetic gingival reconstruction in a fixed partial restoration. Part 1: introduction to artificial gingiva as an alternative therapy. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2009 Oct;29(5):471–477.
  24. Wang HL, Al-Shammari K. HVC ridge deficiency classification: a therapeutically oriented classification. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2002 Aug;22(4):335–343.
  25. Dohan Ehrenfest DM, Pinto NR, et al. The impact of the centrifuge characteristics and centrifugation protocols on the cells, growth factors, and fibrin architecture of a leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) clot and membrane. Platelets 2018 Mar;24(2):171–184. DOI: 10.1080/09537104.2017.1293812.
  26. Doonquah L, Lodenquai R, et al. Surgical techniques for augmentation in the horizontally and vertically compromised alveolus. Dent Clin North Am 2015 Apr;59(2):389–407. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2014.10.004.
  27. Buser D, Martin W, et al. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19(Suppl):43–61.
  28. von Arx T, Buser D. Horizontal ridge augmentation using autogenous block grafts and the guided bone regeneration technique with collagen membranes: a clinical study with 42 patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006 Aug;17(4):359–366. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01234.x.
  29. Monje A, Monje F, et al. Horizontal bone augmentation using autogenous block grafts and particulated xenograft in the severe atrophic maxillary anterior ridges: a cone-beam computerized tomography case series. J Oral Implantol 2015 Jul;41(4):366–371. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-00219.
  30. Ersanli S, Arisan V. Evaluation of the autogenous bone block transfer for transfer for dental implant placement: symphysal or ramus harvesting? BMC Oral Health 2016 Jan;26(4):161–168. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-016-0161-8.
  31. Chiapasco M, Zaniboni M, et al. Augmentation procedures for the rehabilitation of deficient edentulous ridges with oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006 Oct;17(Suppl):136–159. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01357.x.
  32. Cordaro L, Torsello F, et al. Mandibular bone harvesting for alveolar reconstruction and implant placement: subjective and objective cross-sectional evaluation of donor and recipient site up to 4 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011 Nov;22(11):1320–1326. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02115.x.
  33. Levine RA, Huynh-Ba G, et al. Soft tissue augmentation procedures for mucogingival defects in esthetic sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29(Suppl):155–185. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g3.2.
  34. Kamalakidis S, Paniz G, et al. Nonsurgical management of soft tissue deficiencies for anterior single implant-supported restorations: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2007 Jan;97(1):1–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.12.005.
  35. Salama M, Coachman C, et al. Prosthetic gingival reconstruction in the fixed partial restoration. Part 2: diagnosis and treatment planning. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2009 Dec;29(6):572–581.
  36. Enríquez A, Sánchez E, et al. Esthetic restoration with artificial gingiva in an atrophied alveolar ridge: clinical report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2016 Jul;36(4):567–571. DOI: 10.11607/prd.2323.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.