• Implantology
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.242-254
• /
• 2018

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the results of horizontal guided bone regeneration (GBR) with xenograf t (deproteinized bovine bone mineral, DBBM), allograf t (irradiated allogenic cancellous bone and marrow), titanium membrane, resorbable collagen membrane, and advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF) in the anterior maxilla. The titanium membrane was used in this study has a three-dimensional (3D) shape that can cover ridge defects. Case 1. A 32-year-old female patient presented with discomfort due to mobility and pus discharge on tooth #11. Three months after extracting tooth #11, diagnostic software (R2 GATE diagnostic software, Megagen, Daegu, Korea) was used to establish the treatment plan for implant placement. At the first stage of implant surgery, GBR for horizontal augmentation was performed with DBBM ($Bio-Oss^{(R)}$, Geistlich, Wolhusen, Switzerland), irradiated allogenic cancellous bone and marrow (ICB $cancellous^{(R)}$, Rocky Mountain Tissue Bank, Denver, USA), 3D-titanium membrane ($i-Gen^{(R)}$, Megagen, Daegu, Korea), resorbable collagen membrane (Collagen $membrane^{(R)}$, Genoss, Suwon, Korea), and A-PRF because there was approximately 4 mm labial dehiscence after implant placement. Five months after placing the implant, the second stage of implant surgery was performed, and healing abutment was connected after removal of the 3D-titanium membrane. Five months after the second stage of implant surgery was done, the final prosthesis was then delivered. Case 2. A 35-year-old female patient presented with discomfort due to pain and mobility of implant #21. Removal of implant #21 fixture was planned simultaneously with placement of the new implant fixture. At the first stage of implant surgery, GBR for horizontal augmentation was performed with DBBM ($Bio-Oss^{(R)}$), irradiated allogenic cancellous bone and marrow (ICB $cancellous^{(R)}$), 3D-titanium membrane ($i-Gen^{(R)}$), resorbable collagen membrane (Ossix $plus^{(R)}$, Datum, Telrad, Israel), and A-PRF because there was approximately 7 mm labial dehiscence after implant placement. At the second stage of implant surgery six months after implant placement, healing abutment was connected after removing the 3D-titanium membrane. Nine months after the second stage of implant surgery was done, the final prosthesis was then delivered. In these two clinical cases, wound healing of the operation sites was uneventful. All implants were clinically stable without inflammation or additional bone loss, and there was no discomfort to the patient. With the non-resorbable titanium membrane, the ability of bone formation in the space was stably maintained in three dimensions, and A-PRF might influence soft tissue healing. This limited study suggests that aesthetic results can be achieved with GBR using 3D-titanium membrane and A-PRF in the anterior maxilla. However, long-term follow-up evaluation should be performed.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.154-165
• /
• 2006

Objectives : It is difficult to place implants at a severely atrophied edentulous mandible because of vertical and horizontal alveolar defect. The autogenous and allogenic bone graft and guided bone regeneration are useful, but there are some limitations such as the resorption and infection of the grafted bone, and insufficiency of soft tissue. Distraction osteogenesis has recently evolved a challenging technique to overcome major draws of conventional augmentation procedures, we, therefore, report the four applications of implant placement after vertical alveolar distraction osteogenesis. Patients and Methods : Four patients(all female, mean age: $60{\pm}6$ years) with severe alveolar ridge deficiencies at their anterior mandible were treated with vertical alveolar distraction osteogenesis by intraoral device(Track 1.5, 15 mm model, KLS Martin, Tuttlingen, Germany) and placement of implants (Branemark MK III, TiUnite). After the latency periods of 5, 7, 8 days, distraction rhythm and rate were $0.5\;mm{\times}2\;times/day$ in the case of good bone quality, and $0.25\;mm{\times}3\;times/day$ in the case of poor bone quality. After consolidation periods of mean fifteen weeks, five implants for each patients were placed at the interforaminal area. Results : On average, a vertical gain of $11.38{\pm}1.38\;mm$ was obtained by distraction. And all distraction zone showed complete ossification by panoramic radiography. There were no postoperative complications other than numbness of lower lip in one case. Total twenty implants in four patients were placed and their outcomes were satisfactory. Conclusion : It is a useful method to place five implants after vertical distraction osteogenesis of the severely atrophied mandible for the implant-supported fixed prosthesis.