Predictable prosthetic rehabilitation in the traumatized anterior maxilla through alveolar distraction osteogenesis and implant placement: A clinical report

2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 187
Author(s):  
TatianaVargas Koudriavtsev ◽  
Alejandro Sáenz ◽  
RodrigoA Jiménez
Keyword(s):  
Distraction Osteogenesis ◽  
Clinical Report ◽  
Prosthetic Rehabilitation ◽  
Anterior Maxilla ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Alveolar Distraction Osteogenesis

Prosthetic Rehabilitation of Edentulous Ridges Following Alveolar Distraction Osteogenesis: Clinical Report of Three Cases

2011 ◽  
Vol 37 (sp1) ◽  
pp. 183-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gulfem Ergun ◽  
Isil Cekic Nagas ◽  
Dervis Yilmaz ◽  
Mustafa Ozturk
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implant ◽  
Distraction Osteogenesis ◽  
Alveolar Bone ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Clinical Report ◽  
Oral Rehabilitation ◽  
Radiologic Findings ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Dental Practitioners ◽  
Alveolar Distraction Osteogenesis

Patients with complete edentulism who have insufficient bone for endosseous dental implant treatment present a challenge for dental practitioners. Distraction osteogenesis of the edentulous alveolar ridges is a process for augmentation of atrophic alveolar bone before dental implant placement. This clinical report describes the use of distraction osteogenesis and rehabilitation of patients with a fixed or removable implant-supported prosthesis to treat mandibular defects. Two female patients with segmental alveolar atrophy at the posterior regions of mandible and one female patient with defect at the anterior region of mandible were treated using distraction devices. However, lingual tipping of the distraction vector occurred during the distraction phase in patient 1. The morphology of the alveolar bone was also analyzed in relation to the planned implant position. After a consolidation period of 12 weeks on average, radiologic observation suggested that there was sufficient bone formation for implant installation. In all patients, implant-supported fixed or removable prosthetic oral rehabilitation was successfully performed, and the clinical and radiologic findings were satisfactory. After 4 years of follow-up, no functional or esthetic difficulties with the implants and restorations were noted. These case reports suggest that although alveolar distraction osteogenesis seems to be an effective technique for augmenting atrophic alveolar bone for creating bone and soft tissue, complications may occur after surgical procedures.

Implant Success in Distracted Bone Versus Autogenous Bone-Grafted Sites

2009 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 181-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey A. Elo ◽  
Alan S. Herford ◽  
Philip J. Boyne
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Distraction Osteogenesis ◽  
Bone Grafting ◽  
Alveolar Bone ◽  
Autogenous Bone ◽  
Anterior Maxilla ◽  
Endosseous Implants ◽  
Autogenous Bone Grafting ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Posterior Maxilla

Abstract Endosseous implants are the treatment of choice for restoring function and reconstructing most edentulous areas of the maxilla and mandible. In general, alveolar bone defects can be reconstructed by either distraction osteogenesis or autogenous bone grafting. After alveolar reconstruction, endosseous implants are used to support and retain the prosthesis for restoration of form and function. Eighty-two consecutive patients requiring alveolar augmentation prior to implant placement were evaluated. All patients were given treatment options for reconstructing their alveolar defects, which included autogenous bone grafting vs distraction osteogenesis. Sixty-five patients received autogenous grafts (anterior iliac crest: 44; retromolar: 17; tibia: 2; chin: 2), and 17 patients underwent distraction osteogenesis prior to implant placement. A total of 184 implants were placed in the autogenous bone-grafted sites and 56 implants in the distracted bone sites. Implants placed in sites restored with autogenous bone grafts had an implant success rate of 97% (178/184), whereas implants placed in distracted bone sites had a success rate of 98% (55/56). In the autogenous grafted group, 3 implants failed in the posterior mandible, one in the anterior maxilla, one in the anterior mandible, and one in the posterior maxilla. In the distraction group, one implant failed in the posterior mandible. Both techniques are associated with good success rates. There was no statistical difference between implant success in autogenous bone vs distracted bone sites in this group of patients.

scholarly journals Prosthetic rehabilitation of auricular defect: a clinical report

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 240-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aman Arora ◽  
Nirmala Pasam ◽  
Shilpi Gilra ◽  
Preeti C Arora
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Clinical Report ◽  
External Ear ◽  
Case Description ◽  
Prosthetic Rehabilitation ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Sense Of Security ◽  
Laboratory Procedures

Background: The absence of external ear may be due to congenital, traumatic, or surgical causes. Many case reports only describe impression techniques to record details of the defect side and the natural ear. The purpose of this case report is to explain in detail simple clinical and laboratory procedures involved in fabrication of ear prosthesis. Case Description and Methods: The use of three-part mold helps in the application of pigmented silicone in specific areas. The use of direct adhesive fixation provides the best esthetic result and if properly used the most satisfactory form of treatment. Findings and Outcomes: The patient was satisfied with the life-like appearance of the prosthesis. The use of direct adhesive fixation gave the patient a sense of security and improved his confidence. Conclusion: The technique described is economical, and additional steps of implant placement are avoided. The esthetics of the prosthesis made by hand carved clay pattern provides good details. Clinical relevance The technique describes the method of direct adhesive fixation of the prosthesis giving it a life-like appearance. The confidence of the patient is also restored.

scholarly journals Prosthodontic Management of Patient with Anterior Hyperfunction Syndrome: A Clinical Challenge

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (02/03) ◽  
pp. 129-133
Author(s):  
Sanjan Verma ◽  
Manjit Kumar ◽  
Ritu Batra ◽  
Chhavi Sharma ◽  
Shak Mehta
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implants ◽  
Treatment Option ◽  
Occlusal Plane ◽  
Clinical Report ◽  
Prosthetic Rehabilitation ◽  
Anterior Maxilla ◽  
Anterior Teeth ◽  
Clinical Challenge ◽  
Complex Cases ◽  
Maxillary Arch

AbstractThe patient with complete edentulous maxillary arch and partially edentulous mandibular arch poses certain complication in the form of syndrome which was described by Kelly in 1972. There is flabby tissue in the anterior maxilla and posterior occlusal plane slope-down. There is supraeruption of lower anterior teeth, fibrous growth of tuberosity area, resorption of bone in the posterior mandibular ridges, and loss of vertical dimension of occlusion. The treatment varies from patient to patient to develop this syndrome and also varies from condition of the remaining teeth. Best treatment option is to use dental implants, but conventional prostheses are used in complex cases. This clinical report presents the prosthetic rehabilitation of a patient exhibiting combination syndrome.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document