• 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.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.37 no.10
• /
• pp.845-855
• /
• 2004

Background: No general consensus has been available regarding the necessity of postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) and its optimal techniques in the patients with chest wall invasion (pT3cw) and node negative (N0) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We did retrospective analyses on the pT3cwN0 NSCLC patients who received PORT because of presumed inadequate resection margin on surgical findings. And we compared them with the pT3cwN0 NSCLC patients who did not received PORT during the same period. Material and Method: From Aug. of 1994 till June of 2002, 22 pT3cwN0 NSCLC patients received PORT-PORT (＋) group- and 16 pT3cwN0 NSCLC patients had no PORT-PORT (-) group. The radiation target volume for PORT (＋) group was confined to the tumor bed plus the immediate adjacent tissue only, and no regional lymphatics were included. The prognostic factors for all patients were analyzed and survival rates, failure patterns were compared with two groups. Result: Age, tumor size, depth of chest wall invasion, postoperative mobidities were greater in PORT (-) group than PORT (＋) group. In PORT (-) group, four patients who were consulted for PORT did not receive the PORT because of self refusal (3 patients) and delay in the wound repair (1 patient). For all patients, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), loco-regional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) rates at 5 years were 35.3%, 30.3%, 80.9%, 36.3%. In univariate and multivariate analysis, only PORT significantly affect the survival. The 5 year as rates were 43.3% in the PORT (＋) group and 25.0% in PORT (-) group (p=0.03). DFS, LRFS, DMFS rates were 36.9%, 84.9%, 43.1 % in PORT (＋) group and 18.8%, 79.4%, 21.9% in PORT(-) group respectively. Three patients in PORT (-) group died of intercurrent disease without the evidence of recurrence. Few suffered from acute and late radiation side effects, all of which were RTOG grade 2 or lower. Conclusion: The strategy of adding PORT to surgery to improve the probability not only of local control but also of survival could be justified, considering that local control was the most important component in the successful treatment of pT3cw NSCLC patients, especially when the resection margin was not adequate. Authors were successful in the marked reduction of the incidence as well as the severity of the acute and late side effects of PORT, without taking too high risk of the regional failures by eliminating the regional lymphatics from the radiation target volume.