Effectiveness of Two Different Lingual Flap Advancing Techniques for Vertical Bone Augmentation in the Posterior Mandible: A Comparative, Split-Mouth Cadaver Study.

Vertical ridge augmentation in the posterior mandible is a technique-sensitive procedure that requires adequate anatomical knowledge and precise surgical skills to minimize the risk of complications. One of the most important but also challenging aspects of the surgical technique is proper flap management to allow for passive flap closure and reduce the chances of postoperative complications affecting deep anatomical spaces. This article presents a detailed description of a novel lingual flap advancement technique and its validation via a split-mouth, comparative study using a cadaver model. A total of 12 fresh cadaver heads presenting bilateral posterior mandibular edentulism were selected. Sides were randomized to receive a classic lingual flap release technique (control) or the modified technique presented here, which involves the intentional preservation of the mylohyoid muscle attachment to the mandible. Vertical flap release was measured at three different zones using standard forces. The mean difference between the test and control group in zones I (retromolar pad area), II (middle area), and III (premolar area) was 8.273 ± 1.794 mm (standard error of the mean [SEM] = 0.5409 mm), 10.09 ± 2.948 mm (SEM = 0.8889 mm), and 10.273 ± 2.936 mm (SEM = 0.8851 mm), respectively, reaching very strong statistical significance (P < .0001) in all three zones.

Single-tooth implant placement and loading in fresh and regenerated extraction sockets. Five-year results: a case series using two different implant designs.

BACKGROUND: Implant-supported restorations are a commonly used treatment modality. However, insufficient data are available that compare treatment outcomes of implant restorations using different protocols. Similarly, data comparing the treatment outcomes of different implant designs are limited. METHODS: This retrospective, non-randomized study evaluates 241 single implants in 241 patients (127 males and 114 females; mean age: 49.3 years; range: 45 to 75 years). Tapered-type (TAP; n = 118) and cylindric screw-type (CYL; n = 123) implants were used. Implants were grouped into the treatment categories of immediate placement, delayed placement, immediate non-occlusal loading, and delayed loading. Clinical parameters, including clinical attachment level (CAL), plaque index (PI), and bleeding on probing (BOP), were recorded at examinations at baseline (BSL) and 1 (E1), 3 (E3), and 5 years (E5) after loading with the final restoration. RESULTS: Eleven implants were lost (five CYL and six TAP). CAL and PI outcomes were similar for both implant types. No significant influence of implant position was found. A CAL loss of 1.5 mm was observed during the first 3 years. The type of implant and timing of placement showed no significant influence on the survival rate, whereas the failure rate was lower for immediate non-occlusal loaded implants. CONCLUSION: The type of implant, position, and timing of placement and loading did not influence the survival rate of this treatment method.

Alveolar bone preservation in extraction sockets using non-resorbable dPTFE membranes: a retrospective non-randomized study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical regeneration of extraction sockets using high-density polytetrafluoroethylene (dPTFE) membranes without the use of a graft material. METHODS: A total of 276 extraction sockets were evaluated in 276 subjects (151 males and 125 females; mean age, 50.2 years; age range: 24 to 73 years). After extraction, flaps were elevated and a dPTFE membrane was placed over the extraction site. The flaps were repositioned and sutured into place. Primary closure was not obtained over the membranes. The cemento-enamel junctions of the adjacent teeth were used as reference points. Measurements were taken postextraction and 12 months after surgery in the same areas with the help of a stent and were defined as the distance from the reference points to the bone level. Hard tissue biopsies were taken from 10 representative cases during implant placement 12 months after socket preservation. The bone core samples were submitted for histologic evaluation. A stringent plaque-control regimen was enforced in all subjects during the 12-month observation period. RESULTS: A significant regeneration of the volume of sockets could be noted by histologic evaluation, indicating that the newly formed tissue in extraction sites was mainly bone. No influence of gender, smoking, age, or clinical bone level before treatment was found on the percentage of bone gain. CONCLUSION: The use of dPTFE membranes predictably led to the preservation of soft and hard tissue in extraction sites.

Using a dense PTFE membrane without primary closure to achieve bone and tissue regeneration.

The most common types of barrier membranes used for bone or tissue regeneration are made of expanded-polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) or resorbable materials, such as collagen. Both the e-PTFE and resorbable membranes require primary soft tissue coverage. This article explores the use of a dense-polytetrafluoroethylene (d-PTFE) membrane, which does not require primary soft tissue coverage. The advantages of d-PTFE in contrast to the other more commonly used types of barrier membranes and the clinical significance of these advantages for implant surgical and restorative treatment are discussed.

Esthetic considerations in implant dentistry.

The use of dental implants continues to increase world wide, and single tooth replacement has evolved into a predictable procedure which is rapidly becoming the preferred method of tooth replacement. Clearly, there is increased awareness of and demand for esthetics in traditional restorative dentistry as well as implant-related care. Predictable delivery of highly esthetic, naturally appearing implant restorations is dependent on a host of factors, some of which are hardware-based and some of which are related to the morphology and tissue quality of the proposed implant site. An organized approach to patient evaluation and treatment planning by the implant treatment team will improve recognition of these factors of esthetic significance and will facilitate the development of strategies to achieve esthetic excellence on a more predictable basis.