NEW EBOOK: How to Master Bone Regeneration with Digital Innovation. Download Today!
Author: Neeley Spotts
BIOBRIEF
Immediate Implant Placement and Provisionalization for Anterior Esthetics
THE SITUATION
A healthy, 56-year-old female presented with fractured, endodontically treated tooth #9. The tooth was fractured at the gingival level and asymptomatic. Both the patient and the restorative dentist had high esthetic expectations, and preferred immediate implant placement with provisionalization if possible.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system Non-smoker | Light smoker | Impaired immune system |
| Patient’s esthetic requirements | Low | Medium | High |
| Height of the smile line | Low | Medium | High |
| Gingival phenotype | Thick – “low scalloped” | Medium – “medium scalloped” | Thin – “high scalloped” |
| Shape of dental crowns | Rectangular | Triangular | |
| Infection at implant sight | None | Chronic | Acute |
| Bone height at adjacent tooth | ≤ 5 mm from contact point | 5.5 – 6.5 mm from contact point | ≥ 7 mm from contact point |
| Restorative status of adjacent tooth | Intact | Restored | |
| Soft-tissue anatomy | Intact | Compromised | |
| Bone anatomy of the alveolar ridge | No defect | Horizontal defect | Vertical defect |
download pdfTHE APPROACH
The goals of this case were to: 1) maximize pink and white esthetic scores, 2) preserve the pre-operative soft tissue architecture, 3) minimize hard and soft tissue remodeling over time following tooth extraction, and 4) promote long-term implant health and stability. To achieve these objectives, immediate implant placement with immediate provisionalization was planned. The extraction was performed with minimal flap elevation, and the implant was placed in a guided manner with palatal bias to maximize the facial gap. This gap was then grafted with a slowly resorbing bovine xenograft (Geistlich Bio-Oss Collagen®) to minimize remodeling of the labial bone plate. To further enhance soft tissue volume and contour, the facial soft tissue was augmented after using a Geistlich Fibro-Gide® collagen matrix. Finally, an immediate provisional crown was placed to contain the bone graft and provide support for the soft tissue.
“This was a challenging case in which the patient and her dentist had high esthetic expectations. The goal of this case was to preserve as much of the preoperative anatomy as possible and minimize the inevitable hard and soft tissue remodeling that occurs after a tooth is removed.”
— David E. Urbanek, DMD, MS
THE OUTCOME
This case finished with excellent pink and white esthetic scores, and the patient and her dentist were very pleased with the results. Most importantly, the implant demonstrated excellent health and stability over one year since placement.
David E. Urbanek, DMD, MS
Dr. Urbanek is a board-certified Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeon who practices in St. Louis, Missouri. He completed his OMS training at Carle Foundation Hospital in Champaign/Urbana, Illinois. He earned his Dental Degree from the Case Western Reserve University School of Dental Medicine, and a Master’s Degree with Honors in Applied Anatomy from CWRU. Dr. Urbanek serves as adjunct faculty at Carle Foundation Hospital and the A. T. Still University, Missouri School of Dentistry & Oral Health. In addition he avidly lectures to the dental and OMS community throughout the country.
BIOBRIEF
Horizontal Ridge Augmentation with a Layered Allograft-Xenograft Approach
THE SITUATION
The patient presented to the clinic for a dental implant in the tooth #12 location. Clinical evaluation revealed a ridge deficiency. A Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scan was taken, confirming insufficient ridge width for implant placement. As a result, the site was treatment planned for horizontal ridge augmentation.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system | Light smoker | Impaired immune system |
| Patient’s esthetic requirements | Low | Medium | High |
| Gingival biotype | Thick – “low scalloped” | Medium – “medium scalloped” | Thin – “high scalloped” |
| Infection at implant sight | None | Chronic | Acute |
| Bone height at adjacent tooth | ≤ 5 mm from contact point | 5.5 – 6.5 mm from contact point | ≥ 7 mm from contact point |
| Restorative status of adjacent tooth | Intact | Restored | |
| Soft-tissue anatomy | Intact | Compromised | |
| Bone anatomy of the alveolar ridge | No defect | Horizontal defect | Vertical defect |
watch videoTHE APPROACH
Horizontal ridge augmentation was performed using a horizontal layering technique. An inner layer of demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA), featuring vallos® demineralized cortical particles (to promote osteoinduction), was followed by an outer layer of deproteinized bovine bone, Geistlich Bio-Oss® (to maintain space and volume). The graft was contained with a native bilayer collagen membrane, Geistlich Bio-Gide®, and secured with titanium pins (tacks).
“By horizontally layering two distinct bone graft materials—Geistlich Bio-Oss® and vallos®—this approach was designed to tailor the regenerative environment, harnessing the unique osteoinductive potential of the allograft and the long-term space-maintaining properties of the xenograft to optimize both early bone formation and dimensional stability.”
— Eswar Kandaswamy, BDS, MS
THE OUTCOME
The 6-month post-operative CBCT evaluation demonstrated sufficient ridge width for restoratively driven implant placement, a result achieved through the utilization of vallos® and Geistlich Bio-Oss® bone graft materials.
Eswar Kandaswamy, BDS, MS
Dr. Eswar Kandaswamy, BDS MS, is an Assistant Professor at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, School of Dentistry. He earned his Dental Degree from Sri Ramachandra University, India, and practiced general dentistry for two years. He then completed his specialty training in Periodontics and a Master of Science at The Ohio State University.
Amber Kreko, DDS
Dr. Amber Kreko, DDS is a third-year Periodontics resident at Louisiana State University School of Dentistry, soon to earn her Master of Science. With a foundation in dental hygiene and six years of clinical practice in Southeast Louisiana,she returned to LSU for her DDS. Her comprehensive background enriches her approach to periodontal care. Upon graduation, she will transition to private practice.
BIOBRIEF
Lateral and Vertical Bone Regeneration with Simultaneous Soft Tissue Augmentation
THE SITUATION
After extraction of the periodontally damaged tooth #20 the preoperative Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) imaging shows reduced vertical bone volume in the area of tooth #s 18 – 20. A lateral and vertical bone regeneration was necessary.
The goal of treatment was a late implant placement after bone regeneration and creation of stable periimplant soft tissue for long-term implant preservation.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system | Light smoker | Impaired immune system |
| Patient’s esthetic requirements | Low | Medium | High |
| Gingival biotype | Thick – “low scalloped” | Medium – “medium scalloped” | Thin – “high scalloped” |
| Infection at implant sight | None | Chronic | Acute |
| Bone height at adjacent tooth | ≤ 5 mm from contact point | 5.5 – 6.5 mm from contact point | ≥ 7 mm from contact point |
| Width of tooth gap | 1 tooth (≥ 7 mm) | 1 tooth (≤ 7 mm) | 2 teeth or more |
| Soft-tissue anatomy | Intact | Compromised | |
| Bone anatomy of the alveolar ridge | No defect | Horizontal defect | Vertical defect |
Additional Risk Factors: Roots were divergent, and intra-radicular bone (septal bone) was excellent, with more than 5 mm of remaining apical bone to achieve optimal primary stability.
THE APPROACH
A customized bone regeneration procedure utilizing Yxoss CBR®. Followed by coverage of the graft with Geistlich Bio-Gide® for the purpose of Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR). Soft tissue thickening using Geistlich Fibro-Gide®. Delayed implantation into the augmented tissue. A vestibuloplasty with Geistlich Mucograft® for the regeneration of keratinized mucosa.
“Using the Geistlich Fibro-Gide® matrix enabled concurrent augmentation of hard
— Arnd Lohmann, MSc
and soft tissues without any postoperative complications. At the same time, the soft
tissue thickening facilitated floor of the mouth surgery and vestibuloplasty.”
THE OUTCOME
Treatment resulted in approximately 5 mm of vertical bone regeneration. The potential occurrence of a dehiscence associated with a wound opening and exposure of Yxoss CBR® was able to be prevented with Geistlich Fibro-Gide®.
On one hand, the quality of the peri-implant soft tissue was improved by the
soft tissue thickening with Geistlich Fibro‑Gide® and, on the other, by increasing the width of keratinized mucosa with Geistlich Mucograft®. The treatment method chosen resulted in a reduced invasiveness and morbidity by avoiding a donor site for sourcing a transplant.
Arnd Lohmann, MSc
Dr. Arnd Lohmann is a recognized specialist in implantology and periodontology. He earned his dental license in Hamburg in 2002, completed his doctorate in 2003, and has been a partner at a private practice in Bremen since then.
With a Master of Science in Implantology (2007), he specializes in dental implantology and bone augmentation. He is an active speaker at national and international congresses, leads the Bremen study group of the German Society of Oral Implantology (DGOI), and is a member of DGOI, DGZI, and DGI. His practice is equipped with state-of-the-art technology, ensuring high-quality patient care.
CLINICAL CASE
THE OUTCOME
At 6 months, healing was complete with a bone fill of 10x10x6.5 mm. Tooth #7, affected by the combined defect, was fully regenerated. The adjacent ridge defect was also restored, enabling the placement of a regular-sized implant without the need for additional grafting.
Disclaimer: These results are not guaranteed; individual outcomes may vary depending on patient circumstances. This information is for informational purposes only and may not reflect Geistlich’s official position, opinion, or recommendation. Treatment decisions are made at the physician’s discretion, based on the unique needs of each patient.
GEM 21S® has not been approved by FDA for use in ridge augmentation in the US and the safety and effectiveness of GEM 21S® for this use has not been established by FDA.
CLINICAL CASE
THE APPROACH
Considering the patient’s age, condition, and good compliance, a regenerative approach was chosen to preserve all teeth. Due to the extent and severity of the defect, a bone graft, biologics, and a membrane were utilized. The goal was to restore lost attachment and stabilize the teeth through splinted therapy.
THE OUTCOME
At the 7-month follow-up, probing depths decreased from 7 mm (MB, DB) to 3 mm, with radiographic bone fill indicating a 90% success. Attachment gain of 3 mm was achieved, improving from 7 mm to 4 mm. The patient reported satisfactory outcomes, and splinting effectively maintained tooth stability with no mobility.
Disclaimer: These results are not guaranteed; individual outcomes may vary depending on patient circumstances. This information is for informational purposes only and may not reflect Geistlich’s official position, opinion, or recommendation. Treatment decisions are made at the physician’s discretion, based on the unique needs of each patient.
CLINICAL CASE
THE APPROACH
Following flap elevation and thorough defect debridement, a xenograft bone substitute mixed with PDGF (GEM 21S®) was used to fill the defect. The graft was left uncovered without a membrane.
THE OUTCOME
The 1-year follow-up radiograph demonstrated near-complete bone fill in a previously deep defect. Clinically, shallow probing depths and healthy tissue were also observed at the 1-year follow-up.
Disclaimer: These results are not guaranteed; individual outcomes may vary depending on patient circumstances. This information is for informational purposes only and may not reflect Geistlich’s official position, opinion, or recommendation. Treatment decisions are made at the physician’s discretion, based on the unique needs of each patient.
CLINICAL CASE
THE APPROACH
The crown was biologically shaped, and the root surface was detoxified using Ellman burs. Following flap elevation and thorough defect debridement, an allograft mixed with GEM 21S® was used to fill the defect. The graft was then covered with Geistlich Bio-Gide®.
THE OUTCOME
At the 10-month follow-up, radiographs revealed evidence of bone fill, and clinically, the interdental tissue showed signs of maturation. At the 9-year follow-up, clinical photos demonstrated long-term stability, with maintained bone levels, minimal interproximal recession, and lack of facial recession. Radiographic analysis further confirmed the sustained stability of the bone.
Disclaimer: These results are not guaranteed; individual outcomes may vary depending on patient circumstances. This information is for informational purposes only and may not reflect Geistlich’s official position, opinion, or recommendation. Treatment decisions are made at the physician’s discretion, based on the unique needs of each patient.
BIOBRIEF
Bone Grafting and Immediate Implant Placement in the Maxillary First Molar Region
THE SITUATION
Patient presented with unrestorable left maxillary first molar. After data collection with Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and intra-oral scanning, and clinical examination, the situation was considered favorable for minimally traumatic extraction and immediate implant placement.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system | Light smoker | Impaired immune system |
| Patient’s esthetic requirements | Low | Medium | High |
| Height of smile line | Low | Medium | High |
| Gingival biotype | Thick – “low scalloped” | Medium – “medium scalloped” | Thin – “high scalloped” |
| Shape of dental crowns | Rectangular | Triangular | |
| Infection at implant sight | None | Chronic | Acute |
| Bone height at adjacent tooth | ≤ 5 mm from contact point | 5.5 – 6.5 mm from contact point | ≥ 7 mm from contact point |
| Restorative status of adjacent tooth | Intact | Restored | |
| Width of tooth gap | 1 tooth (≥ 7 mm) | 1 tooth (≤ 7 mm) | 2 teeth or more |
| Soft-tissue anatomy | Intact | Compromised | |
| Bone anatomy of the alveolar ridge | No defect | Horizontal defect | Vertical defect |
Additional Risk Factors: Roots were divergent, and intra-radicular bone (septal bone) was excellent, with more than 5 mm of remaining apical bone to achieve optimal primary stability.
THE APPROACH
A fully guided approach was utilized, with an immediate provisional Computer-Aided Design (CAD) and Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) crown. Alveolar socket gaps were grafted with Geistlich Bio-Oss Collagen®, after implant placement. The provisional crown was used also as a socket seal, optimizing healing. After 3 months, a final ceramic crown was delivered. A one-year and a three-year follow-up show excellent clinical contour of the alveolar bone, and integration of the implant.
“Immediate implant placement and loading in molars is a feasible technique, with excellent long-term outcomes, if case selection is adequate, treatment planning is optimized by digital technology, and proper surgical and restorative techniques are applied.”
— Waldemar D. Polido, DDS, MS, PhD
THE OUTCOME
This case shows a three-year follow-up of an immediate implant placement, using Geistlich Bio-Oss Collagen® as a graft material on the gap. Careful tissue management, minimally traumatic extraction, and proper planning, including guided implant surgery can optimize treatment outcomes.
Waldemar D. Polido, DDS, MMS, PhD
Dr. Polido is an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon with MS and PhD degrees from the PUCRS School of Dentistry in Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. He completed his residency in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at The University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. Currently, Dr. Polido is a Clinical Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at the Indiana University School of Dentistry. He is also the Co-Director of the Center for Implant, Esthetic, and Innovative Dentistry at Indiana University School of Dentistry in Indianapolis.
Wel-Shao Lin, DDS, FACP, PhD, MBA
Dr. Lin is a tenured Professor and Chair of Prosthodontics at Indiana University School of Dentistry. He earned his DDS from Chung-Shan and Surgical Implant Fellowship at the University of Rochester (2010). He holds a PhD in Educational Leadership (2020) and an MBA in Healthcare Administration (2022) and is currently pursuing a Master’s Intelligence. Dr. Lin specializes in dental implants, digital dentistry, and AI applications, with over 120 peer-reviewed publications. A Diplomate of the American Board of Prosthodontics and Fellow of ITI and ACP, he also serves as an associate editor for the Journal of Prosthodontics and maintains a clinical practice at Indiana University.
BIOBRIEF
Prosthetic-Surgical Approach to Regenerative Treatment for Peri-Implantitis
THE SITUATION
A 68-year-old male patient, who received an implant in tooth position #31 about 8 years prior, presented for an examination. He reports bleeding during brushing around the implant and some discomfort. Clinically, there was severe vertical bone loss, profuse bleeding on probing, and deep probing depths, but no pain. The condition was diagnosed as peri-implantitis according to the 2018 classification.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system | Light smoker | Impaired immune system |
| Patient’s esthetic requirements | Low | Medium | High |
| Height of smile line | Low | Medium | High |
| Gingival biotype | Thick – “low scalloped” | Medium – “medium scalloped” | Thin – “high scalloped” |
| Infection at implant sight | None | Chronic | Acute |
| Restorative status of adjacent tooth | Intact | Restored | |
| Soft-tissue anatomy | Intact | Compromised | |
| Bone anatomy of the alveolar ridge | No defect | Horizontal defect | Vertical defect |
Additional Risk Factors: The patient exhibited bleeding on probing and deep pocket depths. He also reported occasional marijuana use and was inconsistent with periodontal maintenance and oral hygiene visits.
THE APPROACH
The treatment goals were to eliminate peri-implant infection, regenerate lost hard and soft tissues, and ensure long-term implant stability. A closed regenerative approach was utilized, including crown removal, thorough implant decontamination with Perioflow®, an airpolishing technology, application of the correct bone grafting materials (Geistlich Bio-Oss®, vallos® and GEM 21S®), enclosed healing, and fabrication of a new crown to facilitate hygiene.
“The implant presented with significant bone loss, deep probing depths, and bleeding on probing, placing it at risk of failure and requiring intervention to preserve function and longevity.”
— Andrea Ravidà, DDS, MS, PhD
THE OUTCOME
At the two-year follow-up, clinical and radiographic assessments showed disease resolution, complete bone gain, and stable peri-implant tissues. Probing depths were within healthy ranges, and no bleeding on probing was observed, confirming the long-term success of the treatment.
Andrea Ravidà, DDS, MS, PhD
Dr. Andrea Ravidà is the Director of the Graduate Periodontics Program in the department of Periodontics at the University of Pittsburgh. He conducts clinical research focusing on peri-implantitis, periodontitis and short implants. He has published more than 70 peer-reviewed articles and conference abstracts/presentations related to periodontics and implant therapy. He is section editor of the International Journal of Oral Implantology and the Journal of Translational Medicine.
Anu Viswanathan DDS, MDS
Dr. Anu Viswanathan is a Diplomate of the American Board of Periodontology and Implant Dentistry. She earned her Doctor of Dental Surgery degree from the University of Colorado School of Dental Medicine in 2019. Dr. Viswanathan completed a Certificate in Periodontics and earned a Master of Dental Science at the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine. She also obtained a Certificate in IV Sedation. Dr. Viswanathan is currently in private practice in Shoreline, Connecticut.
BIOBRIEF
Mandibular Ridge Augmentation Using Customized Titanium Mesh
THE SITUATION
A 60-year-old healthy male presented with a failing lower left bridge. Due to a long history of missing teeth, he had a significantly atrophic mandibular ridge. We decided to use a customized titanium mesh to achieve the necessary vertical and horizontal bone augmentation for dental implant rehabilitation.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system | Light smoker | Impaired immune system |
| Patient’s esthetic requirements | Low | Medium | High |
| Restorative status of adjacent tooth | Intact | Restored | |
| Width of tooth gap | 1 tooth (≥ 7 mm) | 1 tooth (≤ 7 mm) | 2 teeth or more |
| Bone anatomy of the alveolar ridge | No defect | Horizontal defect | Vertical defect |
THE APPROACH
The goal of this procedure was to regenerate sufficient bone to place restoratively driven dental implants. Due to the horizontal and vertical ridge deficiency, we used a customized titanium mesh to predictably achieve this outcome.
Autogenous bone collected with SafeScraper Twist and Geistlich Bio-Oss® filled the Yxoss CBR® Protect and a Geistlich Bio-Gide® collagen membrane covered the mesh.
.
“Success in these cases primarily depends on proper mesh design and careful handling of soft tissue to ensure zero-tension primary closure.”
— Shaun R. Young, DMD
THE OUTCOME
A left mandibular ridge deficiency was corrected using a Yxoss CBR® Protect Customized Bone Regeneration Titanium Mesh, designed from the patient’s CBCT scan.
Shaun R. Young, DMD
Dr. Shaun Young, an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon based in Tampa, Florida, specializes in complex ridge augmentation, immediate implants, and All-on-X full arch rehabilitation. He earned his Doctor of Dental Medicine degree from the University of Florida and completed his OMFS residency at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, where he served as Administrative Chief Resident. Dr. Young brings his expertise to a full-scope group practice, serving Tampa, Clearwater, and New Port Richey, Florida.
WEBINAR
BIOBRIEF
Alveolar Ridge Preservation with vallos® Mineralized Cortico-Cancellous Allograft
THE SITUATION
A 68 year old female patient was referred from her general dentist for persistent minor discomfort on #31, suspected endo-perio lesion. Upon the examination, deep probing depth and grade 1 mobility were noted. Radiographic interpretation indicating a large J shaped lesion and possible root fracture. Patient had missing #30 and #32 has been mesially drifted and left a restorative space more than > 13 mm mesio-distally.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system/Non-smoker | Light smoker | Impaired immune system |
| Patient’s esthetic requirements | Low | Medium | High |
| Height of smile line | Low | Medium | High |
| Gingival biotype | Thick – “low scalloped” | Medium – “medium scalloped” | Thin – “high scalloped” |
| Shape of dental crowns | Rectangular | Triangular | |
| Infection at implant sight | None | Chronic | Acute |
| Bone height at adjacent tooth site | ≤ 5 mm from contact point | 5.5 – 6.5 mm from contact point | ≥ 7 mm from contact point |
| Restorative status of adjacent tooth | Intact | Restored | |
| Width of tooth gap | 1 tooth (≥ 7 mm) | 1 tooth (≤ 7 mm) | 2 teeth or more |
| Soft-tissue anatomy | Intact | Compromised | |
| Bone anatomy of the alveolar ridge | No defect | Horizontal defect | Vertical defect |
THE APPROACH
A successful treatment outcome comes with proper selection of the technique and materials. In order to facilitate an implant supported restoration in the site with > 13mm mesio-distal space, a staged approach was selected, with alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) performed using an atraumatic extraction technique and vallos® mineralized cortico-cancellous bone allograft chosen as the material.
“Ensuring atraumatic extraction techniques, regardless of whether it’s in the anterior or posterior regions, is crucial for preserving the integrity of both hard and soft tissues. Equally important is the selection of biomaterials that not only offer structural support but also possess bone regeneration properties.”
— Dr. Hanae Saito
THE OUTCOME
The planned treatment of replacing a tooth with a dental implant in the regenerated alveolar ridge was achieved. By employing secondary intention healing following ARP and utilizing a lingual paracrestal incision, adequate keratinized tissue was preserved on the buccal side of the implant-supported restoration.
Hanae Saito, DDS, MS, CCRC
Hanae Saito, DDS, MS, CCRC serves as a clinical associate professor and oversees the Dual Perio-Pros program and predoctoral periodontal education within the Division of Periodontics, at the University of Maryland School of Dentistry. She is a Diplomate of the American Board of Periodontology. Dr. Saito obtained a Master of Science in Clinical Research and a certificate in Periodontics from New York University College of Dentistry. Additionally, she operates a faculty practice focused on periodontology and implant dentistry.
Andrew Tong, DDS
Andrew Tong, DDS earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland at College Park in 2015 before completing his Doctor of Dental Surgery (D.D.S) degree at the University of Maryland School of Dentistry in 2019. Following this, he undertook a General Practice Residency at the Newark Beth Israel Medical Center in New Jersey from 2019 to 2020. Dr Tong now practices general dentistry at Tong Dental Care in Gaithersburg, MD. Concurrently, he is pursuing a Master’s degree in Periodontics at the University of Maryland School of Dentistry.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
BIOBRIEF
Selecting Biomaterials for Combined Complex Defects
THE SITUATION
The patient called the office complaining of sensitivity and swelling in the maxillary left quadrant. He was seen and prescribed an antibiotic. Tooth #12 was deemed hopeless, and the peri-apical and radicular lesion presented on the radiograph extended significantly on the mesial aspect, impacting the interproximal bone level for tooth #11. Patient presents with implant supported restorations distal to the affected area and was concerned about the infection spreading to that area as well. The area was treated successfully, and the patient was pleased with the outcome, allowing him to preserve the tooth, on the mesial aspect of the lesion and the implant distally.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system/Non-smoker | Light smoker | Impaired immune system |
| Patient’s esthetic requirements | Low | Medium | High |
| Height of smile line | Low | Medium | High |
| Gingival biotype | Thick – “low scalloped” | Medium – “medium scalloped” | Thin – “high scalloped” |
| Shape of dental crowns | Rectangular | Triangular | |
| Infection at implant sight | None | Chronic | Acute |
| Bone height at adjacent tooth site | ≤ 5 mm from contact point | 5.5 – 6.5 mm from contact point | ≥ 7 mm from contact point |
| Restorative status of adjacent tooth | Intact | Restored | |
| Width of tooth gap | 1 tooth (≥ 7 mm) | 1 tooth (≤ 7 mm) | 2 teeth or more |
| Soft-tissue anatomy | Intact | Compromised | |
| Bone anatomy of the alveolar ridge | No defect | Horizontal defect | Vertical defect |
THE APPROACH
The goals of the procedure were to eliminate infection, the source of pain, and reduce periodontal problems to the adjacent tooth and implant. Full thickness flap was reflected, #12 was removed and the socket was debrided and irrigated. A peri-radicular lesion was removed and submitted for histopathological exam.
“A localized infection can easily spread and impact adjacent teeth and implants. It is critical for clinicians to intervene as soon as possible to prevent further complications. Patient education and motivation is key to successfully treat these types of clinical situations encountered in a daily practice.”
— Dr. Irina Dragan
THE OUTCOME
The combined defect: #11 distal guided tissue regeneration and #12 alveolar ridge preservation for #12. This area was treated with vallos®, Geistlich Bio-Oss Collagen®, and Geistlich Bio-Gide®. The xenograft was placed in the apical portion of the socket and the allograft towards the coronal surface.
Irina F. Dragan, DDS, DMD, MS, eMBA
Periodontology and Implant Dentistry
Dr. Irina Dragan is board certified and an examiner for the American Board of Periodontology and Implant Dentistry. She is part-time faculty in postgraduate periodontics at Harvard School of Dental Medicine and an adjunct associate professor of periodontology at Tufts University School of Dental Medicine. She is a periodontist and clinical researcher at The Perio Studio, a practice limited to periodontology and implant dentistry in Boston, MA.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
Sorry, you do not have permission to view this content.
BIOBRIEF
The Buccal Pedicle Flap for Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Volume
THE SITUATION
Patient presented with a fistula buccal on tooth #9 associated with a chronic peri-apical lesion and external root resorption. Also tooth #8 showed a chronic peri-apical lesion. Her chief complaint was the misalignment of her teeth. The clinical situation revealed the presence of bleeding upon probing and generalized moderate periodontal disease (Stage II, Grade I) as well as multiple endodontic failures.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system | Light smoker | Impaired immune system |
| Patient’s esthetic requirements | Low | Medium | High |
| Height of smile line | Low | Medium | High |
| Gingival biotype | Thick – “low scalloped” | Medium – “medium scalloped” | Thin – “high scalloped” |
| Shape of dental crowns | Rectangular | Triangular | |
| Infection at implant sight | None | Chronic | Acute |
| Bone height at adjacent tooth site | ≤ 5 mm from contact point | 5.5 – 6.5 mm from contact point | ≥ 7 mm from contact point |
| Restorative status of adjacent tooth | Intact | Restored | |
| Width of tooth gap | 1 tooth (≥ 7 mm) | 1 tooth (≤ 7 mm) | 2 teeth or more |
| Soft-tissue anatomy | Intact | Compromised | |
| Bone anatomy of the alveolar ridge | No defect | Horizontal defect | Vertical defect |
THE APPROACH
The aim of the treatment is to eradicate periodontal disease and restore esthetics and function. Treatment planning: non-surgical and surgical periodontal treatment, orthodontic alignment, extraction of both central incisors, immediate implant placement and Guided Bone Regeneration with Geistlich Bio-Oss®, peri-implant soft tissue boosting with a buccal pedicle flap and full ceramic CAD-CAM restorations.
“Orthodontic treatment must be postponed because of the presence of periodontal disease. A thin biotype and a high smile line needs to be taken into consideration.”
THE OUTCOME
The final outcome at 8 weeks is showing pink esthetics as well as biomimetics and function. The use of the buccal pedicle flap allowed the increased volume of the peri-implant mucosa with a minimally invasive approach. The combination of Geistlich Fibro-Gide® and a buccal pedicle flap had the main advantage of reducing the morbidity generally associated with CT harvesting.
Dr. Giorgio Tabanella
Dr. Tabanella is a Diplomate of the American Board of Periodontology, an Active Member of the Italian Academy of Esthetic Dentistry and author of the book “Retreatment of Failures in Dental Medicine”. He graduated from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA where he obtained his Certificate in Periodontics as well as a Master of Science in Craniofacial Biology. He is Director of O.R.E.C. – Oral Reconstruction and Education Center (www.tabanellaorec.com), reviewer and author of original articles.
BIOBRIEF
Use of Geistlich Fibro-Gide® for Correction of Maxillary Anterior Soft Tissue Peri-implant Ridge Deficiencies
THE SITUATION
A 27-year-old female with congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors was referred for implant placement. Following completion of orthodontics, a plan was developed to place dental implants at the #7 and #10 positions. Based on CBCT evaluation, alveolar ridge height and width was deemed sufficient for implant placement. Despite sufficient bone volume, facial ridge volume deficiencies were noted at both edentulous sites, requiring augmentation to allow for optimal esthetics.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system | Light smoker | Impaired immune system |
| Patient’s esthetic requirements | Low | Medium | High |
| Height of smile line | Low | Medium | High |
| Gingival biotype | Thick – “low scalloped” | Medium – “medium scalloped” | Thin – “high scalloped” |
| Shape of dental crowns | Rectangular | Triangular | |
| Infection at implant sight | None | Chronic | Acute |
| Bone height at adjacent tooth site | ≤ 5 mm from contact point | 5.5 – 6.5 mm from contact point | ≥ 7 mm from contact point |
| Restorative status of adjacent tooth | Intact | Restored | |
| Width of tooth gap | 1 tooth (≥ 7 mm) | 1 tooth (≤ 7 mm) | 2 teeth or more |
| Soft-tissue anatomy | Intact | Compromised | |
| Bone anatomy of the alveolar ridge | No defect | Horizontal defect | Vertical defect |
THE APPROACH
The goal of treatment was to replace missing maxillary lateral incisors with dental implants, while providing an esthetic result with predictable and minimally invasive techniques. Employing a surgical guide for implant placement, implants were placed in precise 3-dimentional positions. The use of xenograft biomaterials (Geistlich Fibro-Gide®) allowed for the augmentation of gingival biotype and elimination of the buccal ridge deficiencies while avoiding the harvesting of autogenous tissue.
“A buccal ridge deficiency with congenitally missing lateral incisors in a high-scallop, high-smile young female patient.”
THE OUTCOME
The presented case involves a female patient with congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors and soft tissue ridge deficiencies. Implants were placed and a volume-stable collagen matrix Geistlich Fibro-Gide® was placed to provide labial soft tissue volume. The tissue emergence was then developed with the use of provisional restorations, one placed at the time of surgery, the other following implant integration. The implants were restored with gingival tissue transformed to mimic convex root emergence.
Dr. Israel Puterman
Dr. Puterman, originally from Montreal Canada, received his DMD from Boston University in 2002 and dual graduate certificates in Implant Dentistry and in Periodontics from Loma Linda University in 2008. He is a published author in various journals including the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry and the Journal of Prosthodontics. He practices in the Washington, DC area.
BIOBRIEF
Successful Implant Placement and Horizontal Augmentation for Bilateral Congenitally Missing Maxillary Incisors
THE SITUATION
A 30-year-old male patient was referred to me with bilateral congenitally missing lateral incisors in the maxilla. The referring general dentist had previously made a resin-bonded bridge which was successful for a few years but had frequent debondings. Clinical examination revealed lack of ridge contour but the CBCT revealed existence of adequate width for placement of narrow-diameter implants with additional bone grafting and contour augmentation. The existing bone anatomy precluded placement of implants for screw-retained restorations without a pre-surgical lateral ridge augmentation procedure. The patient accepted a treatment plan for placement of two narrow-diameter implants and simultaneous bone grafting and contour augmentation followed by restoration with zirconia cement-retained crowns.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system | Light smoker | Impaired immune system |
| Patient’s esthetic requirements | Low | Medium | High |
| Height of smile line | Low | Medium | High |
| Gingival biotype | Thick – “low scalloped” | Medium – “medium scalloped” | Thin – “high scalloped” |
| Shape of dental crowns | Rectangular | Triangular | |
| Infection at implant sight | None | Chronic | Acute |
| Bone height at adjacent tooth site | ≤ 5 mm from contact point | 5.5 – 6.5 mm from contact point | ≥ 7 mm from contact point |
| Restorative status of adjacent tooth | Intact | Compromised | |
| Width of tooth gap | 1 tooth (≥ 7 mm) | 1 tooth (≤ 7 mm) | 2 teeth or more |
| Soft-tissue anatomy | Intact | Compromised | |
| Bone anatomy of the alveolar ridge | No defect | Horizontal defect | Vertical defect |
THE APPROACH
My treatment goals were to preserve the existing soft-tissue architecture, especially the interdental papilla, mesial and distal to the lateral incisors, improve the facial contour at the lateral incisor sites by bone grafting with a low substitution biomaterial, and harmonize esthetics and function with optimal implant-supported restorations.
“The patient had failed resin-bonded bridges with deficient contours for bilateral congenitally missing lateral incisors.”
THE OUTCOME
Single-stage implant placement with bilateral papilla-sparing incision design and simultaneous contour augmentation using a mixture of Geistlich Bio-Oss® autologous bone chips and Geistlich Bio-Gide®.
Dr. Avinash Bidra
Dr. Bidra is a Board Certified Maxillofacial Prosthodontist and Director of the Prosthodontics Residency Program at UCONN School of Dental Medicine. He has extensive surgical experience and maintains a part-time private practice restricted to Implant Surgery and Prosthodontics in Meriden, CT. He has lectured at national and international meetings, as well as published extensively in international scientific journals. He has invented prosthetic components and is a co-inventor of a new implant design.
BIOBRIEF
Phenotype Conversion Using Geistlich Fibro-Gide® for Immediate Implants in the Esthetic Zone
THE SITUATION
A healthy non-smoking 50-year-old female patient who desires a single tooth solution to replace a non-restorable tooth, #12. A root fracture at the level of the palatal post was diagnosed in a root canaled tooth. Maintaining esthetics of the adjacent teeth is important as they are also restored with single full coverage porcelain crowns. Lastly, treatment time reduction and a minimally invasive surgical technique are desired by the patient for reduced downtime and post-operative morbidity.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system | Light smoker | Impaired immune system |
| Patient’s esthetic requirements | Low | Medium | High |
| Height of smile line | Low | Medium | High |
| Gingival biotype | Thick – “low scalloped” | Medium – “medium scalloped” | Thin – “high scalloped” |
| Shape of dental crowns | Rectangular | Triangular | |
| Infection at implant sight | None | Chronic | Acute |
| Bone height at adjacent tooth site | ≤ 5 mm from contact point | 5.5 – 6.5 mm from contact point | ≥ 7 mm from contact point |
| Restorative status of adjacent tooth | Intact | Restored | |
| Width of tooth gap | 1 tooth (≥ 7 mm) | 1 tooth (≤ 7 mm) | 2 teeth or more |
| Soft-tissue anatomy | Intact | Compromised | |
| Bone anatomy of the alveolar ridge | No defect | Horizontal defect | Vertical defect |
Facial Bone Wall Phenotype: High Risk (<1mm)
Esthetic Risk Profile (ERP) = Medium (summary of above)
THE APPROACH
A minimally invasive surgical removal of tooth #12 with maintenance of the buccal plate and leaving a 3mm buccal gap. The implant will be placed one mm below the level of the intact buccal plate with an anatomically correct surgical guide template to provide for a screw-retained solution. The gap will be filled with Geistlich Bio-Oss Collagen® to maintain the bone buccal to the implant, and a palate free approach utilizing Geistlich Fibro-Gide® for soft tissue thickening to accomplish “phenotype conversion.” The long-term surgical goal is >2-3mm thickness of both hard and soft tissue buccal to the implant.
“High esthetic demands were the primary concern with this case. They were addressed with the diagnostic tools of clinical photos, a site specific CBCT to evaluate the buccal wall status, and summing the findings with patient expectations gathered using the Esthetic Risk Assessment (knee-to-knee; eye-to-eye) which is used along with our consent agreement to treatment.”
THE OUTCOME
Minimally invasive surgery for buccal wall maintenance, virtually planning the buccal gap and implant width, using a xenograft in the buccal gap with phenotype conversion using a volume stable collagen matrix in conjuction with immediate contour management, allows for the best chance for papillae fill interproximally and maintenance of the mid-buccal gingival margin long-term.
Dr. Robert A. Levine
Robert A. Levine DDS is a board-certified periodontist at the Pennsylvania Center for Dental Implants and Periodontics in Philadelphia. He is a Fellow of the International Team for Dental Implantology (ITI), College of Physicians in Philadelphia, International Society of Periodontal Plastic Surgeons and the Academy of Osseointegration. He has post-graduate periodontology and implantology teaching appointments at Temple University in Philadelphia, UNC in Chapel Hill and UIC in Chicago and has over 80 scientific publications.
BIOBRIEF
Guided Tissue Regeneration in the Esthetic Zone of a 34-Year-Old Male
THE SITUATION
A 34-year-old healthy male presented with increased spacing between maxillary left central and lateral incisors. Clinical examination showed deep probing depths between #9-10 area. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) showed vertical bone loss #9-10 wrapping around the palatal surfaces. Treatment recommendation included guided tissue regeneration (GTR) to stabilize the periodontium.
Area #9-10 was debrided and showed a wide 1-2 wall defect measuring ~7mm vertical bone loss. GTR procedure using Geistlich vallomix™ bone graft (allograft + xenograft) and a collagen membrane were employed and primary closure obtained. Healing at 2 and 4 weeks and 6 months showed proper bone fill with stable periodontium.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system | Light smoker | Impaired immune system |
| Patient’s esthetic requirements | Low | Medium | High |
| Height of smile line | Low | Medium | High |
| Gingival biotype | Thick – “low scalloped” | Medium – “medium scalloped” | Thin – “high scalloped” |
| Shape of dental crowns | Rectangular | Triangular | |
| Infection at implant sight | None | Chronic | Acute |
| Bone height at adjacent tooth site | ≤ 5 mm from contact point | 5.5 – 6.5 mm from contact point | ≥ 7 mm from contact point |
| Restorative status of adjacent tooth | Intact | Restored | |
| Width of tooth gap | 1 tooth (≥ 7 mm) | 1 tooth (≤ 7 mm) | 2 teeth or more |
| Soft-tissue anatomy | Intact | Compromised | |
| Bone anatomy of the alveolar ridge | No defect | Horizontal defect | Vertical defect |
THE APPROACH
Correct the vertical bone loss around #9-10 and save the dentition. Sulcular incisions with a paracrestal incision around #9-10 were performed. The area was debrided showing a wide 1-2 bony wall defect (measuring ~7mm vertical bone loss). Primary closure was obtained using 6-0 prolene sutures.
“Guided tissue regeneration is indicated to correct the vertical bone loss around the #9-10 area and stabilize the periodontium.”
THE OUTCOME
The use of a minimally invasive surgical GTR approach showed excellent radiographic bone fill and reduction in probing depths from 8mm to 3mm at 6 months follow-up. Treatment outcome revealed stable periodontium and the patient was happy with the healthy stable teeth.
Bassam Kinaia, DDS, MS, DICOI
Dr. Kinaia is the Associate Director of the Graduate Periodontology Program at the University of Detroit Mercy (UDM). He is also the former Director of the Periodontology Program at UDM in Michigan and Boston University Institute for Dental Research and Education in Dubai. He is a Diplomate of the American Acade- my of Periodontology (AAP) and International Congress of Oral Implantology (ICOI). He received a certificate of Excellence from the AAP in recognition of teaching-research fellowship.
BIOBRIEF
Geistlich Mucograft® for the Treatment of Multiple Adjacent Recession Defects: A More “Palatable” Option
THE SITUATION
A 35-year-old male presented in my practice with a chief complaint of recession. Multiple buccal recession defects ranging 2-5 mm were noted by teeth #11-14 with a minimal amount of keratinized tissue on the buccal of #14. Bone levels were within normal limits with no loss of interproximal tissue observed. These recession defects are classified as Miller Class I recession defects. Typically, 100% root coverage is expected for recession defects of this type.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system | Light smoker | Impaired immune system |
| Patient’s esthetic requirements | Low | Medium | High |
| Height of smile line | Low | Medium | High |
| Gingival biotype | Thick – “low scalloped” | Medium – “medium scalloped” | Thin – “high scalloped” |
| Bone defect(s) | Not present | Slight defect <2mm | Significant >3mm |
| Keratinized tissue | Adequate 5mm | Inadequate <5mm | Inadequate <3mm |
| Miller classification | Class I-II | Class III | Class IV |
THE APPROACH
My treatment goals included completing root coverage of the recession defects and augmentation of the width of attached keratinized tissue by tooth #14. My patient had similar recession defects on teeth #3-6 which were previously treated with an autogenous sub-epithelial connective tissue graft. Instead of autogenous tissue grafting, Geistlich Mucograft®, a xenogenic collagen matrix, was used in conjunction with a coronally advanced flap.
“The patient was unhappy with the post-operative morbidity he
experienced as a result of the previous connective tissue graft.”
THE OUTCOME
This case illustrates the successful use of Geistlich Mucograft®, a xenogenic collagen matrix, for the treatment of multiple adjacent recession defects. Complete root coverage and an increase in the zone of keratinized tissue was obtained and a dento-gingival complex that is amenable to long-term health and stability was achieved. My patient was spared from the inevitable morbidities associated with a sub-epithelial connective tissue graft from a palatal donor site.
Dr. Daniel Gober
Dr. Daniel D. Gober received his DDS from SUNY Stony Brook School of Dental Medicine in 2010. He completed his residency in periodontics and implantology at Nova Southeastern University. Dr. Gober is board certified by the American Academy of Periodontology and is a Diplomate of the International Congress of Oral Implantology. He is also certified in the administration of IV sedation and specializes in soft-tissue procedures around both natural teeth and implants. He currently practices in Cedarhurst, NY at South Island Periodontics & Implantology, PLLC.
BIOBRIEF
Soft-Tissue Augmentation in the Esthetic Zone
THE SITUATION
A young male patient was referred to the clinic with a missing central incisor, #9 following trauma. An implant was placed and the patient was referred for an implant-born reconstruction. The patient does not smoke and drinks occasionally. Upon a clinical examination, extensive horizontal and vertical contour deficiencies are present prior to abutment connection.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system | Light smoker | Impaired immune system |
| Patient’s esthetic requirements | Low | Medium | High |
| Height of smile line | Low | Medium | High |
| Gingival biotype | Thick – “low scalloped” | Medium – “medium scalloped” | Thin – “high scalloped” |
| Shape of dental crowns | Rectangular | Triangular | |
| Infection at implant sight | None | Chronic | Acute |
| Bone height at adjacent tooth site | ≤ 5 mm from contact point | 5.5 – 6.5 mm from contact point | ≥ 7 mm from contact point |
| Restorative status of adjacent tooth | Intact | Restored | |
| Width of tooth gap | 1 tooth (≥ 7 mm) | 1 tooth (≤ 7 mm) | 2 teeth or more |
| Soft-tissue anatomy | Intact | Compromised | |
| Bone anatomy of the alveolar ridge | No defect | Horizontal defect | Vertical defect |
THE APPROACH
The compromized situation with a horizontal and vertical hard and soft-tissue deficit required a soft-tissue volume grafting procedure. A buccal split-thickness flap was prepared and Geistlich Fibro-Gide® shaped and placed. Primary wound closure was obtained. Abutment connection was performed after 8 weeks and the emergence profile created with a provisional reconstruction. The final reconstruction was placed at 3 months.
“The patient presented with severe horizontal and vertical hard and soft-tissue defects. I needed a solution that could increase the soft-tissue anatomy around the implant and prosthesis.”
THE OUTCOME
The outcome of the case was very pleasing having fulfilled the patient’s expectations in terms of esthetics and function. The tissues are healthy and volume was obtained through the grafting procedure to match the contour of the neighboring natural tooth.
Prof. Dr. Daniel S. Thoma
Prof. Dr. Daniel Thoma is the head of Reconstructive dentistry and Vice-chairman at the Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Sciences, University of Zurich, Switzerland. He graduated in 2000 at the University of Basel, Switzerland and was trained in implant dentistry and prosthodontics at the clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and dental Material Sciences, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
BIOBRIEF
Horizontal Ridge Augmentation in the Posterior Mandible of a 90-Year-Old Female
THE SITUATION
A 90-year-old female presented requesting dental implants be placed in the left mandibular posterior region. Her chief complaint was increased drooling and difficulty chewing on only one side. She lost her bridge one year prior to her visit and firmly stated that she did not want to wear a partial denture. The clinical exam and CBCT showed that there was a horizontal alveolar ridge deficiency that precluded the implants from being placed in a restoratively desirably position. Therefore, a horizontal ridge augmentation was done using multiple layers of Geistlich Bio-Gide® Compressed over a 1:1 ratio of autogenous bone and Geistlich Bio-Oss® xenograft.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system | Light smoker | Impaired immune system |
| Patient’s esthetic requirements | Low | Medium | High |
| Height of smile line | Low | Medium | High |
| Gingival biotype | Thick – “low scalloped” | Medium – “medium scalloped” | Thin – “high scalloped” |
| Shape of dental crowns | Rectangular | Triangular | |
| Infection at implant sight | None | Chronic | Acute |
| Bone height at adjacent tooth site | ≤ 5 mm from contact point | 5.5 – 6.5 mm from contact point | ≥ 7 mm from contact point |
| Restorative status of adjacent tooth | Intact | Restored | |
| Width of tooth gap | 1 tooth (≥ 7 mm) | 1 tooth (≤ 7 mm) | 2 teeth or more |
| Soft-tissue anatomy | Intact | Compromised | |
| Bone anatomy of the alveolar ridge | No defect | Horizontal defect | Vertical defect |
THE APPROACH
The treatment goal was to gain adequate horizontal bone dimension to allow for prosthetically-driven implant placement. Guided bone regeneration was performed in which autogenous bone was mixed with Geistlich Bio-Oss® xenograft in a 1:1 ratio. PRF was used to create “sticky bone” and was covered by multiple layers of Geistlich Bio-Gide® Compressed. The membrane was stabilized with periosteal biting stabilizing sutures. Tension-free primary closure was achieved and the grafted site was allowed to heal for 8 months prior to the implant surgery for #19 and #20.
“A predictable ridge augmentation procedure was needed to help our 90-year-old patient avoid having nutritional deficiencies due to lack of proper chewing ability and also to improve her quality of life.”
THE OUTCOME
The horizontal ridge augmentation procedure resulted in adequate bone for implant therapy as evidenced by the CBCT scan and re-entry surgery. With a sufficient quantity of good quality regenerated bone, implants for #19 and #20 were placed using a surgical guide based on a diagnostic wax up. Our 90-year-old patient is very happy to be able to chew efficiently again.
Dr. John Kim
Dr. Kim, originally from Fairfax, VA, received his DMD from Harvard School of Dental Medicine. He completed his residency and received his M.S. in Periodontics at UNC School of Dentistry at Chapel Hill. Dr. Kim is a Diplomate of the American Board of Periodontology and actively speaks as an expert on guided bone regeneration, implant therapy, soft tissue grafting, and managing complications domestically and internationally. He is also an adjunct faculty at UNC Adams School of Dentistry.
BIOBRIEF
Horizontal Ridge Augmentation in the Esthetic Zone
THE SITUATION
An adult female patient presented with a long history of edentulism at site #9. Patient was interested in replacing her missing tooth with a dental implant, and was wearing a Nesbit appliance. The irritation from the ill-fitting Nesbit appliance resulted in irregular and friable soft-tissue at site #9.
Pre-operative CBCT demonstrated a hard-tissue concavity apical to the crest of the bone. The primary goal of therapy was to regain horizontal dimension of hard and soft-tissue to achieve prosthetically-driven placement of a dental implant to replace the patient‘s left central incisor.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system | Light smoker | Impaired immune system |
| Patient’s esthetic requirements | Low | Medium | High |
| Height of smile line | Low | Medium | High |
| Gingival biotype | Thick – “low scalloped” | Medium – “medium scalloped” | Thin – “high scalloped” |
| Shape of dental crowns | Rectangular | Triangular | |
| Infection at implant sight | None | Chronic | Acute |
| Bone height at adjacent tooth site | ≤ 5 mm from contact point | 5.5 – 6.5 mm from contact point | ≥ 7 mm from contact point |
| Restorative status of adjacent tooth | Intact | Restored | |
| Width of tooth gap | 1 tooth (≥ 7 mm) | 1 tooth (≤ 7 mm) | 2 teeth or more |
| Soft-tissue anatomy | Intact | Compromised | |
| Bone anatomy of the alveolar ridge | No defect | Horizontal defect | Vertical defect |
THE APPROACH
The treatment goal was to regain the horizontal dimension of hard and soft-tissue through guided bone regeneration. In coordination with the restoring dentist, a diagnostic wax up was completed to determine the ideal tooth position and to regain mutually protected occlusion on the patient’s left side. The combination of Geistlich Bio-Oss® and autologous bone chips was used along with Geistlich Bio-Gide® to regenerate the horizontal dimension for prosthetically-driven implant placement.
“Patient with a long history of partial edentulism was seeking a long-term, predictable restorative option to replace her missing left central incisor.”
THE OUTCOME
Adequate hard and soft-tissue architecture was restored with the use of Geistlich Bio-Oss® and Geistlich Bio-Gide® for predictable, prosthetically-driven implant placement. The combination of Geistlich Bio-Oss® and autologous bone chips provides the best chance for regeneration while maintaining the hard and soft-tissue contours.
Dr. Justin Kang
Dr. Justin Kang received his Doctor of Dental Medicine degree from University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine. He completed his residency and received his Masters of Science in Periodontics at Columbia University College of Dental Medicine. Dr. Kang is a Diplomate of the American Board of Periodontology and a member of numerous professional associations including the Academy of Osseointegration, American Dental Association and the New Jersey Dental Association.
BIOBRIEF
Root Coverage for Multiple Adjacent Teeth in the Maxilla with Geistlich Fibro-Gide® 1.5-Year Follow-Up
THE SITUATION
The patient is a healthy, 60-year-old female who presented to our clinic with a chief complaint of progressive gum recession which had led to compromised esthetics and sensitivity involving the maxillary left lateral incisor (#10), canine (#11), and first bicuspid (#12) teeth. The teeth in question had 3-4 mm of gingival recession on the buccal surface with a sufficient zone of keratinized gingiva. These teeth also had obvious cervical abrasion.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system | Light smoker | Impaired immune system |
| Patient’s esthetic requirements | Low | Medium | High |
| Height of smile line | Low | Medium | High |
| Gingival biotype | Thick – “low scalloped” | Medium – “medium scalloped” | Thin – “high scalloped” |
| Shape of dental crowns | Rectangular | Triangular | |
| Infection at implant sight | None | Chronic | Acute |
| Bone height at adjacent tooth site | ≤ 5 mm from contact point | 5.5 – 6.5 mm from contact point | ≥ 7 mm from contact point |
| Restorative status of adjacent tooth | Intact | Restored | |
| Width of tooth gap | 1 tooth (≥ 7 mm) | 1 tooth (≤ 7 mm) | 2 teeth or more |
| Soft-tissue anatomy | Intact | Compromised | |
| Bone anatomy of the alveolar ridge | No defect | Horizontal defect | Vertical defect |
Severity of recession – mild to moderate
Amount of keratinized gingiva – 2 mm or greater for all teeth involved
THE APPROACH
Treatment goals for this case were to obtain complete root coverage, increase soft tissue thickness, and reduce/eliminate cervical sensitivity. A split-thickness envelope flap approach was used. Geistlich Fibro-Gide® was then trimmed, hydrated with saline, and placed over the exposed root surfaces. The flap was coronally advanced in a tension-free manner to completely cover the biomaterial and exposed root surfaces.
“The patient’s main priorities were to improve esthetics and reduce/eliminate root sensitivity. Soft tissue grafting was done with autologous connective tissue in other areas of her mouth many years ago and she was hesitant to undergo surgery again if it involved harvesting tissue from her palate due to the post-operative pain she experienced after these previous procedures.”
THE OUTCOME
This case nicely shows that the result following root coverage surgery to treat multiple adjacent teeth using a volume-stable collagen matrix is comparable to that seen with autologous connective tissue. At 1.5 years, there is continued stability of the treated site. The tissue appears healthy and firm. The patient‘s chief complaints of esthetics and sensitivity have been addressed and the patient is maintaining excellent oral hygiene and home care.
Dr. Vinay Bhide
Dr. Vinay Bhide is a board certified Periodontist with a special interest in periodontal plastics and reconstructive surgical procedures. Dr. Bhide did his dental and specialty training at the university of Toronto. In addition to private practice, Dr. Bhide is a clinical instructor in the Department of Periodontics at the university of Toronto. He is also a staff periodontist in the Center for Advanced Dental Care and Research at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.
BIOBRIEF
Lateral Ridge Augmentation in the Posterior Mandible
THE SITUATION
A 70-year-old female in good health presented with a fracture of tooth #19 which is the distal abutment for a four-unit bridge tooth #19-22, with pontics in the #20 and #21 positions. With the loss of the bridge, the patient desired a fixed prosthetic replacement. A bridge from tooth #22 to an implant placed at the #18 position was not deemed mechanically sound. She opted for implant placement at positions #19, #20 and #21 following lateral ridge augmentation with autogenous bone and Geistlich Bio-Oss® contained with a Geistlich Bio-Gide® membrane.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system | Light smoker | Impaired immune system |
| Patient’s esthetic requirements | Low | Medium | High |
| Height of smile line | Low | Medium | High |
| Gingival biotype | Thick – “low scalloped” | Medium – “medium scalloped” | Thin – “high scalloped” |
| Shape of dental crowns | Rectangular | Triangular | |
| Infection at implant sight | None | Chronic | Acute |
| Bone height at adjacent tooth site | ≤ 5 mm from contact point | 5.5 – 6.5 mm from contact point | ≥ 7 mm from contact point |
| Restorative status of adjacent tooth | Intact | Compromised | |
| Width of tooth gap | 1 tooth (≥ 7 mm) | 1 tooth (≤ 7 mm) | 2 teeth or more |
| Soft-tissue anatomy | Intact | Compromised | |
| Bone anatomy of the alveolar ridge | No defect | Horizontal defect | Vertical defect |
THE APPROACH
A subperiosteal flap with a mid-ridge incision was performed with anterior and posterior releasing incisions which were placed the distance of one tooth mesial and one tooth distal from the graft site. The posterior releasing incision allowed for exposure of the ramus for harvesting of the autologous bone. The grafted site was allowed to heal for a period of 8 months at which time the implants were placed. Abutment connection occurred 4 months following implant placement.
“A bone graft was required to augment the ridge, a CBCT scan was performed prior to surgery to determine bone volume and the amount of bone required to graft.”
THE OUTCOME
Following 8 months of healing, the augmented site showed sufficient bone width that was assessed with a CT scan. After examination, it was determined that the bone width was adequate for implant placement in the desired position to allow an esthetically pleasing and functional outcome for the patient.
Dr. John M. Sisto
Dr. John M. Sisto received his Doctorate in Dental Surgery degree from Loyola University and completed his residency and certification in Oral and Maxilofacial Surgery at the Cook County Hospital in Chicago. Dr. Sisto was the Director of Residency Education at Cook County Hospital from 1985 to 2010 and started the residency program in oral and maxillofacial surgery in 1990. He held teaching positions at both Northwestern and University of Illinois Dental schools as a clinical assistant professor, and also at Northwestern Medical School. He was the Division Chief of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at Cook County Hospital and Chairman of Dentistry at Resurrection Medical Center. Dr. Sisto has published papers on dental implant surgery, trauma surgery, orthognathic surgery and maxillofacial infections. He has lectured both locally and nationally at various educational forums.
