• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.161-171
• /
• 2006

Endosseous implants have restored normal function and dental health to many patients. When implants were introduced as an effective treatment modality, their efficacy was limited by the amount of available bone. Today, various grafting procedures can surgically create bone width and volume. Implants can be placed in more ideal locations for successful prosthetic reconstruction. The use of autogenous bone grafts represents the "gold standard" for bone augmentation procedures. Either intraoral or extraoral sites may be considered for donor sites. Alveolar ridge augmentation using autogenous bone block, can be done during implant placement or staged with implant placement, after bone graft healing. In the staged technique, a better implant positioning and the use of wide diameter implants are possible. Alveolar ridge augmentation using autogenous block graft is a predictable way of treatment, for the atrophic alveolar ridge before implant placement. The cases presented in this article clinically demonstrate the efficacy of using a autogenous block graft in generating effective new bone fill for dental implant placement.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.57 no.3
• /
• pp.149-160
• /
• 2019

Atrophic alveolar ridge of maxillary anterior area is commonly observed after the extraction of teeth in patients with severely compromised periodontal disease, causing difficulties with implant placement. Successful esthetics and functional implant rehabilitation rely on sufficient bone volume, adequate bone contours, and ideal implant positioning and angulation. The present case report categorized the ridge augmentation techniques using guided bone regeneration (GBR) on the maxillary anterior site by Seibert classification. Case I patient presented for implant placement in the position of tooth #11. The alveolar ridge was considered a Seibert classification I ridge defect. Simultaneous implant placement and GBR were performed. Eight months after implantation, clinical and radiological examinations were performed. Case III patient presented with discomfort due to mobility of the upper maxillary anterior site. Due to severe destruction of alveolar bone, teeth #11 and #12 were extracted. After three months, the alveolar ridge was considered a Seibert classification III ridge defect. A GBR procedure was performed; implantation was performed 6 months later. Approximately 1-year after implantation, clinical and radiological examinations were performed. During the whole treatment period, healing was uneventful without membrane exposure, severe swelling, or infection in all cases. Radiographic and clinical examinations revealed that atrophic hard tissues and buccal bone contour were restored to the acceptable levels for implant placement and esthetic restoration. In conclusion, severely resorbed alveolar ridge of the maxillary anterior area can be reconstructed with ridge augmentation using the GBR procedure so that dental implants could be successfully placed.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.55 no.12
• /
• pp.850-860
• /
• 2017

Orthodontic treatment with premolar extraction is usually performed to correct bialveolar protrusion. These methods require the use of stiff rectangular working archwire which requires lengthy alignment and leveling before insertion. In this case report, interproximal reproximation was performed instead of extraction. To establish clearance between the archwire and resin domes fixing the archwire, an archwire was inserted into a water-soluble tube before fabricating resin domes. This tube is solved away by the saliva. During fabrication of resin domes, the archwire was deflected intentionally reflecting the displacement of teeth from their ideal position. This can be called as deflection-based bonding (DBB) technique. DBB is different from conventional method of positioning the brackets on its ideal position and then inserting an archwire to align the brackets. Because the orthodontic force of the archwire comes from its deflection from passive configuration, deflecting an archwire as needed can move the teeth more predictably than just bonding brackets on its ideal position. Also, areas with good alignment before orthodontic treatment can be maintained simply by not deflecting the archwire during bonding in these areas. After initial alignment, interproximal reproximation was performed to create 4.8 mm space in the maxillary arch and 4.2 mm space in the mandibular arch. These spaces were closed using orthodontic mini-implant anchorage thus retracting the maxillary incisors 4 mm posteriorly accompanied with 0.7 mm and 0.3 mm distal movement of right and left molars. By using interproximal reproximation and water-soluble tube with DBB, mild bialveolar protrusion was successfully treated without extraction.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.278-283
• /
• 2017

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the interdental distances of anterior, premolar, and molar teeth at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) and 2 mm below the CEJ in healthy natural dentition with cone-beam computerized tomography (cone-beam CT) in order to provide valuable data for ideal implant positioning relative to mesiodistal bone dimensions. Materials and Methods: Two hundred patients who visited Dental Hospital, Wonkwang University, who had natural dentition with healthy interdental papillae, and who underwent cone-beam CT were selected. The cone-beam CT images were converted to digital imaging and communication in medicine (DICOM) files and reconstructed in three-dimensional images. To standardize the cone-beam CT images, head reorientation was performed. All of the measurements were determined on the reconstructed panoramic images by three professionally trained dentists. Results: At the CEJ, the mean maxillary interdental distances were 1.84 mm (anterior teeth), 2.07 mm (premolar), and 2.08 mm (molar), and the mean mandibular interproximal distances were 1.55 mm (anterior teeth), 2.20 mm (premolar), and 2.36 mm (molar). At 2mm below the CEJ, the mean maxillary interdental distances were 2.19 mm (anterior teeth), 2.51 mm (premolar), and 2.60 mm (molar), and the mean mandibular interproximal distances were 1.86 mm (anterior teeth), 2.53 mm (premolar), and 3.01 mm (molar). Conclusion: The interdental distances in the natural dentition were larger at the posterior teeth than at the anterior teeth and also at 2 mm below the CEJ level compared with at the CEJ level. The distances between mandibular incisors were the narrowest and the distances between mandibular molars were the widest in the entire dentition.