Flapless versus open flap techniques of implant placement: A 15‑month follow‑up study.

Aim: To evaluate and compare the effect of flapless and “open flap” techniques of implant placement on crestal bone height (CBH) around implants. Materials and Methods: This prospective study comprised of 32 implants placed in 16 subjects with a bilateral missing mandibular first molar. In each subject, one implant was placed with “flapless” and other using “open flap” technique. Radiographic assessment of CBH was carried out using standardized intraoral periapical radiograph of the site at baseline, 3 months, 9 months and 15 months after implant placement. Statistical Analysis: Data were analyzed using STATA 11.0 statistical software. To determine the changes in CBH from baseline, at 3‑, 9‑, and 15‑month, repeated measures analysis of variance followed by post‑hoc Bonferroni was used for each of the two techniques for mesial and distal aspects separately. For both techniques, changes in CBH from baseline to 15 months were compared using an independent t‑test with a confidence interval of 95%. Results: For “flapless” technique, there was no statistically significant (P > 0.05) reduction of CBH in initial 9 months but was significant for the 9–15 months period while for “open flap” technique, statistically significant (P < 0.05) reduction was observed up to 15 months. Comparison of both techniques showed significantly lesser reduction with “flapless” than “open flap” technique. The overall average crestal bone loss was 0.046 ± 0.008 mm on mesial aspect, 0.043 ± 0.012 mm on distal aspect with “flapless” technique and 1.48 ± 0.085 mm on mesial aspect, 1.42 ± 0.077 on distal aspect “open flap” technique. Conclusions: Both techniques showed a reduction in CBH with time but the flapless technique showed a lesser reduction. Therefore, the flapless technique can be considered as a better treatment approach for placement of implants, especially where adequate width and height of available bone are present.

Prosthetic rehabilitation after orbital exenteration: A case series.

Orbital exenteration is executed by the ophthalmic surgeon to treat various neoplasms or non-malignant diseases. But it leads to several functional, esthetic and psychological problems for the patients. Orbital prosthesis is a good alternative for cosmetic and psychological rehabilitation, if reconstructive surgery is not possible or not desired by the patient. In the following article, diff erent materials and retentive aids for fabrication of an orbital prosthesis given in the literature along with few novel methods have been discussed for four patients who underwent orbital exenteration. Factors that an ophthalmic surgeon should consider during surgery, which may later on help the prosthodontist to obtain good cosmetic results, are also discussed briefly. Remarkable results can be obtained if both work as a team for one common goal i.e. improvement of quality of life of the patient after orbital exenteration.