GEM 21S®, the first recombinant growth factor product for use in oral regenerative surgery. Learn More
Category: Uncategorized
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 |
watch video
download pdfTHE 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.
WEBINAR
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.
BIOBRIEF
Bone Augmentation L-Shape Technique with Early Implant Placement
THE SITUATION
The patient presented to the clinic with a discolored tooth #8, with mobility and a history of trauma. The tooth has a horizontal fracture in the apical third of the root and has recurrent infection after the root canal treatment. The patient feels discomfort and dislikes his esthetic appearance. He would like the fractured tooth #8 removed and replaced with a fixed solution.
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
To carefully extract tooth #8 and to replace it with an early-stage implant placed with simultaneous guided bone regeneration through the use of Geistlich Bio-Oss Collagen® trimmed in an “L-Shape” under the protection of a Geistlich Bio-Gide® membrane. To augment the peri-implant soft-tissue with the use of a connective tissue graft during implant healing time, increasing the overall volume of site #8. To provisionalize the implant for the development of a proper emergence profile. To deliver a definitive reconstruction which is functional and esthetic for the patient.
“A fractured anterior tooth needs to be replaced with an implant-supported reconstruction.”
THE OUTCOME
The implant and its prosthetic reconstruction were successful because they provided the patient with a fixed solution with adequate function and esthetics. The implant shows stable marginal bone levels due to the proper implant placement together with the guided bone regeneration procedure. The peri-implant soft-tissue is healthy and stable with sufficient volume created by the soft-tissue augmentation. The definitive reconstruction meets the patient’s esthetic demands and is functional in occlusion.
Prof. Dr. Ronald E. Jung
Prof. Dr. Jung is currently Head of the Division of Implantology, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine at the University of Zürich. In 2006 he worked as Visiting Associate Professor at the Department of Periodontics at the University of Texas Heath Science center at San Antonio, USA (Chairman: Prof. D. Cochran). In 2008 he finalized his “Habilitation” (venia legendi) in dental medicine and was appointed associate professor at the University of Zürich. In 2011 he received his PhD degree from the University of Amsterdam, ACTA dental school, The Netherlands. He is an accomplished and internationally renowned lecturer and researcher, best known for his work in the field of hard- and soft-tissue management and his research on new technologies in implant dentistry.
BIOBRIEF
Ridge Augmentation and Delayed Implant Placement on an Upper Lateral Incisor
THE SITUATION
An adult female patient presented with an endodontic/prosthetic failure on the maxillary left lateral incisor. The patient‘s request was to have a definitive implant-supported single crown. The clinical situation revealed recession of the free gingival margin, while the CBCT evaluation showed the missing buccal bone plate, which contra-indicated an immediate implant placement. The treatment plan included a staged approach with a ridge augmentation procedure at the time of tooth extraction, in order to recreate the buccal bone plate and reduce the gingival recession. By moving the free gingival margin, keratinized tissue was gained through an open-healing approach.
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 treatment goals were to improve the soft-tissue levels and regenerate the buccal bone plate. After performing a flapless extraction procedure, a specifically designed resorbable bilayer collagen membrane, Geistlich Bio-Gide® Shape, was inserted into the socket with the long wing in contact with the buccal surface and the smooth, compact upper layer facing outward. The alveolus was then grafted with Geistlich Bio-Oss Collagen®. The three smaller wings of the membrane were folded on top of the graft material and sutured to the surrounding soft-tissue, allowing for open-healing.
“The patient had a failing crown with compromised soft tissue and requested a single crown rehabilitation with improved esthetics.”
THE OUTCOME
This case demonstrates how it is possible to improve the clinical and esthetic situation that was presented at baseline. Despite missing the buccal bone plate and the recession of the free gingival margin, the ridge augmentation procedure performed with the combination of Geistlich Bio-Gide® Shape and Geistlich Bio-Oss Collagen® was able to create a positive volume of the ridge, allowing for a prosthetically guided implant placement.
Dr. Daniele Cardaropoli
Periodontist – PRoED, Institute for Professional Education in Dentistry, Torino
Doctor of Dentistry and Certificate in Periodontology from the University of Torino, Italy.
Active member of the Italian Society of Periodontology, European Federation of Periodontology, Italian Academy of osseointegration and Academy of osseointegration. International member of the American Academy of Periodontology. Scientific Director of Institute for Professional Education in Dentistry (PRoED), Torino. Member of the Editorial Board of The International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry. Private practice in Torino, Italy.
BIOBRIEF
Combined Horizontal and Vertical Regeneration Using a CAD-CAM Titanium Scaffold
THE SITUATION
A 54-year-old, systematically healthy male patient (*ASA) came to our attention presenting with partial edentulism in the lower jaw and requiring a fixed and esthetic rehabilitation, refusing any removable solution. The clinical and radiographic evaluation resulted in significant bone atrophy both in the vertical and horizontal components; which makes it impossible to place both conventional implants and short or narrow implants.
*American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System
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
Solving the case was developed in two steps: first bone reconstruction to restore the ideal anatomy, second positioning of the prosthetically guided implants. An individualized regeneration technique was chosen using a CAD-CAM titanium scaffold (Yxoss CBR®) in conjunction with a mix of 60% autogenous bone and 40% Geistlich Bio-Oss®, covered by Geistlich Bio-Gide®. At 9 months, the titanium scaffold was easily removed and 3 prosthetically guided implants were placed, completely surrounded by bone. At 12 months, a free gingival graft was performed to re-establish the missing amount of keratinized mucosa. Finally, at 16 months, the final rehabilitation was carried out with a fixed prosthesis on implants.
“Combined horizontal and vertical bone augmentation utilizing a CAD CAM titanium scaffold can be achieved with less surgical time and less complications.”
THE OUTCOME
The final resolution of the case was very satisfactory. There were no complications during all the procedures performed. The Yxoss CBR® allowed for easier reconstructive surgery and a significant reduction in surgical times, thanks to the precise dimensions of the scaffold. This resulted in a favorable post- operative situation for the patient and complications were prevented.
Dr. Gian Maria Ragucci
Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (UIC), Barcelona Dental degree at Universidad Europea de Madrid 2015
International Master in oral surgery at UIC, Barcelona 2018
PhD student at UIC, Barcelona 2018
EAO Certification program in implant dentistry 2018
EAO European prize in implant dentistry 2019
Prof. Federico Hernández-Alfaro
Full professor & Chairman, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, UIC, Barcelona
Institute of Maxillofacial Surgery, Teknon Medical Center, Barcelona
BIOBRIEF
Immediate Mandibular Molar Transition
THE SITUATION
The case here is typical enough, a failing mandibular molar with a vertical sub-osseous fracture. Traditionally, the replacement process can take three or more surgical exposures (extraction and regeneration), (implant placement), (second stage exposure) and more than a year of therapy.
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
Immediate molar replacement requires atraumatic removal of the fractured tooth, careful socket debridement and development of a channel for an ideally positioned implant. The implant then needs to be placed down in the bone channel with the implant platform positioned just below the socket walls. It needs to be stable. Channel deficiency augmentation is achieved with Geistlich Bio-Oss Collagen® which is covered with a collagen matrix, Geistlich Mucograft® with the edges tucked under the gingival margins and sealed over with tissue glue.
“The patient desires an implant placement for a fractured mandibular molar, as fast as possible.”
– Dr. Peter Hunt
THE OUTCOME
This single stage replacement protocol has proven to be simple, safe and highly effective providing the socket is fully degranulated and the implant is stable and not loaded in the early healing stages. It works well when a gingiva former is immediately placed into the implant instead of a cover screw, Geistlich Bio-Oss Collagen® is packed around the implant to fill the residual socket, then covered with a Geistlich Mucograft® and sutured. There is no need for flap advancement to cover over the socket.
Dr. Peter Hunt
After graduate training on an Annenberg Fellowship at the University of Pennsylvania, dr. hunt helped start up the University of the Western Cape dental School in Cape Town, South Africa. he returned to the University of Pennsylvania where in time he became Clinical Professor of Periodontics. later he helped start up Nova Southeastern‘s dental School where he was Professor of Restorative dentistry, Post Graduate director and director of Implantology. he has had a private practice in Philadelphia focusing on implant and rehabilitation dentistry since 1981.
BIOBRIEF
Ramal Bone Graft for Congenitally Missing Maxillary Lateral Incisor
THE SITUATION
An 18-year-old female presented with a congenitally missing tooth #10. The patient previously sought care by another provider and had undergone guided bone regeneration with allograft and subsequent implant placement with additional grafting at the time of implant placement. The implant ultimately failed and was removed prior to my initial consultation. An examination revealed maximal incisal opening, within normal limits, missing #10 with 6 mm ridge width. In addition there was a significant palpable cleft-like depression on the facial aspect of the ridge, adequate attached tissue but reduced vertical height in relation to adjacent dentition and attached tissue. Previous surgeries resulted in extensive fibrous tissue with scarring at site #10. Plan: A ramal bone graft is indicated at the congenitally missing site #10 with Geistlich Bio-Oss® and Geistlich Mucograft® matrix utilized for ridge augmentation prior to secondary implant placement.
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 for this patient are to reconstruct the osseous foundation and provide a matrix for improvement with the overlying soft tissue. Specifically, a coordinated multidisciplinary plan was established with the restoring dentist, periodontist and oral surgeon. A plan for idealized anterior cosmetic prosthetic restoration was established. Sequencing of treatment was established. Surgical phase one included a ramal bone graft to site #10 and Essix type temporary prosthesis for immediate post-operative phase followed by a temporary Maryland bridge. Surgical phase two included implant placement and simultaneous crown lengthening and osteoplasty. This stage was done with immediate provisionalization.
“This is a young patient with a congenitally missing incisor that has high esthetic concerns and has had multiple failed surgical attempts that is now presenting for definitive management.”
THE OUTCOME
This case was dependent upon adequate hard-tissue reconstruction combined with soft-tissue manipulation to eliminate scar tissue and provide esthetic recontouring. Obtaining an adequate autogenous graft combined with Geistlich Bio-Oss® at the periphery of the onlay graft is essential for anterior-posterior and vertical augmentation. Utilizing a Geistlich Mucograft® matrix at the ridge crest to help contain the particulate graft and improve the soft-tissue profile for subsequent immediate provisionalization and re-contouring of the surrounding soft tissue played a significant role in the esthetic success.
Dr. Richard E. Bauer, III
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon – University of Pittsburgh
Richard E. Bauer, III, DMD, MD is a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh Schools of Dental Medicine and Medicine. Dr. Bauer completed his residency training in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Dr. Bauer has served on multiple committees for the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (AAOMS). He is a full-time faculty member and Residency Program Director at the University of Pittsburgh in the department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and his practice is focused on dental implants and corrective jaw surgery. He has been active in research with focus on bone regeneration and virtual applications for computer assisted planning and surgery.
BIOBRIEF
Prosthetically Guided Regeneration (PGR) in the Posterior Maxilla
THE SITUATION
The 60-year-old female patient’s chief complaint was represented by unsatisfactory esthetics and function, related to loss of multiple maxillary teeth. Her request focused on improving esthetics and function by means of a fixed reconstruction.
The patient presented five residual anterior maxillary teeth (from 6 to 10) that could be maintained. After preliminary periodontal diagnosis and treatment, specific diagnostic steps for implant treatment demonstrated inadequate bone volume for implant placement.
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
Bi-lateral sinus lift with Geistlich Bio-Oss Pen® and horizontal bone augmentation with a 1:1 mix of autogenous bone and Geistlich Bio-Oss® were performed six months prior to implant placement, following a Prosthetically Guided Regenerative (PGR) approach. The augmented sites were protected with Geistlich Bio-Gide® stabilized with titanium pins. The template utilized for radiographic diagnosis and GBR was then used to guide the implants’ placement.
Using a diagnostic template during the GBR procedure helps to highlight the presence of bone defects in relationship to the restorative plan and future position of implants.
THE OUTCOME
After a healing period of six months, adequate bone volume was achieved for the placement of five implants. Geistlich Fibro-Gide® was also used to optimize soft tissue volume at the buccal aspect of implants.
Implants were early loaded with a temporary screw-retained fixed prostheses six weeks after placement. The final prosthetic reconstruction included ceramic veneers of the frontal residual teeth and zirconium-ceramic screw-retained fixed prostheses on implants.
Paolo Casentini, DDS
Graduated in Dentistry at the University of Milan, Fellow and Past Chairman of the Italian section of ITI, Active member Italian Academy of Osseointegration. Co-author of 10 textbooks including ITI Treatment Guide volume 4, translated in eight languages, and “Pink Esthetic and Soft Tissues in Implant Dentistry” translated in five languages. His field of interest is advanced implantology in complex and esthetically demanding cases. He has extensively lectured in more than 40 countries.
BIOBRIEF
Avoiding Post-Implant Placement and Long Term Crestal Bone Resorption by Thickening Vertical Soft Tissue
THE SITUATION
Our patient is a 60-year-old caucasian male that had just finished a large ridge augmentation in the area of #4 and #5. We used the sausage technique for the ridge augmentation and yielded excellent bone volume in this area. However, as we began the 2nd stage implant placement procedure, we noticed, as is frequently seen following a large ridge augmentation, very thin vertical soft tissue over the crest of the bone. We know that inadequate soft tissue thickness will lead to compromised vasculature and transfer of oxygen and nutrients to the bone which can absolutely lead to a loss of crestal bone surrounding the implants.
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 |
Note: Bone was augmented prior to this case report due to a severe horizontal defect.
THE APPROACH
Our goal here is to create increased vertical soft tissue thickness over the crest of the implant site. Following implant placement and placement of the cover screws, we used Geistlich Fibro-Gide® over the implants and then layed it over the crest and buccal aspect. Following the placement of Geistlich Fibro-Gide®, we gently released the full thickness flap so that we can achieve tension-free primary closure over the site.
The use of Geistlich Fibro-Gide® is a wonderful alternative to using a connective tissue graft to thicken vertical soft tissue, which will help minimize crestal bone loss around implants.
THE OUTCOME
The soft tissue that will now surround the implant site is thick and healthy due to the use of Geistlich Fibro-Gide® at the time of implant placement. This is a simple technique and only requires a minimal amount of flap release to achieve tension-free primary closure over the site. The results are phenomenal and will be beneficial for the stability of the crestal bone surrounding the implants for years to come.
Tamir Wardany, D.D.S.
Dr. Wardany is a graduate of Meharry Medical College School of Dentistry in Nashville, TN. After completion of a dental implant fellowship through State University of New York Stonybrook, he continues to spend extensive time in Europe training under Dr. Istvan Urban in the field of advanced bone and soft tissue regeneration.
He is a Diplomate of the American Board of Implantology, and lectures extensively on the topic of bone regeneration. He maintains a referral based surgical implant practice in San Francisco and Sacramento, California.
BIOBRIEF
A Regenerative Approach to Peri-implantitis
THE SITUATION
A 55-year-old man was referred to me by his general dentist. Upon initial clinical and radiographic findings, failing implant #9 showed signs of peri-implantitis that included BoP, Suppuration, 9+mm PD and radiographic bone loss affecting both the implant and the natural adjacent tooth. Patient stated that although his gums bleed, he does not have any pain. Gingival erythema was also found.
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 |
Note: Peri-implantitis on implant #9 migrating to the mesial portion of root #8
THE APPROACH
The clinical goals were to eliminate the peri-implant infection, restore hard and soft-tissues and have long-term success. The technique utilized was a systematic regenerative approach to eliminate the underlying cause of the peri-implantitis infection and restore hard and soft-tissues to prior health.
Geistlich Fibro-Gide® has the capacity to enhance the soft-tissue during a bone regenerative approach.
THE OUTCOME
My observation at the 1.5 year follow-up shows the elimination of peri-implantitis and complete peri-implant health was achieved showing a reduction in BOP, PD and most importantly soft tissue thickness stability. Radiographically, crestal bone shows no signs of progressive pathological loss and has maintained adequate volume.
Hector L. Sarmiento, D.M.D., MSc.
Dr. Hector Sarmiento was awarded his D.M.D. degree by the University of Rochester. He is uniquely trained in both maxillofacial surgery and periodontics. He is a professor in the maxillofacial surgery department of trauma and reconstructive unit at the Regional Hospital in Mexico and is an Assistant Clinical Professor in periodontics at the University of Pennsylvania. Along with his periodontal degree, he also received his masters in oral biology from the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Sarmiento is an international and national lecturer and has published numerous articles in peer reviewed journals and textbooks. His research focus includes infected dental implants such as peri-implantitis, sinus complications as well as bone biology. Dr. Sarmiento maintains his private practice in the upper east side of Manhattan in NYC.
BIOBRIEF
3D Bone Augmentation Using Customized Titanium Mesh in Conjunction with Autogenous Bone and Bovine Bone Material Granules
THE SITUATION
A 75-year-old systemically healthy female came to our attention presenting with absent mandibular second bicuspids and molars and requiring a fixed rehabilitation supported by implants as she refused a removable solution. The clinical and radiographic evaluation showed a relevant vertical and horizontal bone atrophy of such an extent that short or narrow implants were not considered a reliable option. The patient smoked <10 cigarettes per day.
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 main goal was to obtain a horizontal and vertical reconstruction of the deficient alveolar bone in order to allow safe and prosthetically-guided implant placement. Reconstruction was obtained by means of a customized titanium mesh, Yxoss CBR®, in combination with a mixture of autologous bone chips harvested from the mandibular ramus and bovine bone mineral, Geistlich Bio-Oss®.
The 3-dimensional reproduction of the left edentulous area permits the production of a precise and customized Ti-mesh.
THE OUTCOME
Post-operative recovery of this patient was uneventful, no complications such as dehiscence or late exposure of the customized mesh, with complete correction of the initial defect. The Yxoss CBR® allowed an easy and faster reconstruction thanks to the precision of the prefabricated mesh filled with autologous chips, Geistlich Bio-Oss® and Geistlich Bio-Gide®.
Matteo Chiapasco, D.D.S., M.D.
Graduated in Medicine and specialized in Maxillofacial Surgery at the University of Milan, Italy. Professor, Unit of Oral Surgery, University of Milan; Associate Professor, Loma Linda University, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Grazia Tommasato, D.D.S., M.S.C.
Graduated in Dentistry in 2013, specialized in Oral Surgery at the University of Milan magna cum laude. PhD student and a medical consultant of the Clinical Unit of Oral Surgery (“G. Vogel” Clinic, Milan).
BIOBRIEF
Enhance Periodontal Phenotype with Geistlich Mucograft® for Soft Tissue Augmentation
THE SITUATION
A healthy, non-smoking, 37- year-old female presented for second stage surgery at implant sites #23 and #26. Limited keratinized tissue width and gingival thickness can be appreciated in the edentulous ridge, and the patient can be classified as having a thin periodontal phenotype. Additionally, the patient states she experiences sensitivity, and the tissue feels “tender” when brushing. The patient hopes to address her needs in a minimally invasive manner.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system Non-smoker | Light smoker | Impaired immune system Heavy smoker |
| 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 treatment was to enhance the existing periodontal phenotype from that of one which is thin, with limited keratinized tissue, to one that is thick and maintains an adequate band of attached keratinized tissue. Geistlich Mucograft® was used in conjunction with a PRF membrane, in order to provide optimal wound healing, due to its chemotactic and angiogenic properties.
A viable option that allows for reduced patient morbidity, adequate functional necessity, and ideal esthetics.
THE OUTCOME
Dual application of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and a xenogenic collagen matrix, Geistlich Mucograft®, led to successful augmentation of the edentulous ridge. At one-year, the tissues appear healthy, and an increased keratinized tissue width and gingival thickness can be appreciated. By using this soft tissue alternative, the patient was able to avoid post-operative morbidity from a second surgical site, and the chief complaint was addressed.
Allison Rascon, D.D.S., M.S.
Dr. Allison Rascon was born and raised in Miami, Florida. She received her Bachelor of Science in Biomedical and Health Sciences from the University of Central Florida. She received her DDS from New York University, where she graduated with honors in Periodontics and was inducted into the Omicron Kappa Upsilon National Dental Honor Society in 2020. She then went on to receive a Certificate in Periodontics and Master of Science in Oral Biology from the University of Pennsylvania. Currently, she is board-eligible by the American Academy of Periodontology. She is an active member of the AAP, AO, OF, and ADA. Aside from her active participation in organized dentistry, she is also passionate about her research in periodontal and peri-implant regeneration. Dr. Rascon was a recipient of the George J. Coslet Memorial Scholarship in 2021 and 2022. During her residency, she was awarded the Best Oral Clinical Presentation Award at the Academy of Osseointegration Annual Meeting in 2022 and was the recipient of the Northeastern Society of Periodontists Tannenbaum/ Schoor Resident School Competition Award for 2023. Currently, Dr. Rascon works in private practice in Manhattan, NY.
BIOBRIEF
Clinical Efficacy of Geistlich Mucograft® in Regeneration of Oral Mucosa Combined with the Surgical Treatment of Peri-implantitis in Implants with Lack of Keratinized Tissue
THE SITUATION
Adult patient, non-smoker and without relevant systemic history, attends to clinic referring peri-implant tissue inflammation, bleeding and brushing discomfort around her implant in the upper jaw. Clinically peri-implant pocket depth > 5 mm, bleeding and suppuration on probing were observed. Furthermore, the implant presented < 2 mm of keratinized mucosa and radiographic horizontal bone loss.
THE RISK PROFILE
| Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health | Intact immune system Non-smoker | Light smoker | Impaired immune system Heavy smoker |
| 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
Intrasulcular incision was made and a mucosal partial thickness flap was raised. The recipient site was prepared by sharp disection in order to create a periosteal bed free of any muscle attachment. Peri-implant granulation tissue was removed and implantoplasty was performed. Finally, Geistlich Mucograft® was used to support the gain of keratinized tissue. Thus, the collagen matrix was sutured with the resulting flap apically at the base of the newly created vestibulum.
Absence of > 2 mm of keratinized mucosa was associated with peri-implant soft-tissue inflammation, bleeding and discomfort on brushing.
THE OUTCOME
After two years follow-up, the successful outcome can be observed in terms of clinical peri-implant parameters, gain of keratinized mucosa without significant graft shrinkage and stability of vertical position of the mucosal margin.
Dr. Alberto Ortiz-Vigón
- DDS from the University of the Basque Country
- MSc and PhD in bone regeneration from the University Complutense of Madrid (UCM)
- Master in Periodontology and Implant dentistry from the EFP
- Research fellowship at the University of Gothenburg
- MBA from the Deusto Business School
- Assistant professor and clinical researcher at UCM and ThinkingPerio Research
- PerioCentrum Clinic in Bilbao
- Co-founder of ARC Healthtech Innovation Holding
- Socially engaged & NGO co-founder of Smile is a Foundation
Dr. Erik Regidor Correa
- DDS from the University of the Basque Country
- MSc from the U. of the Basque Country
- Master in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry U. of the Basque Country
- PhD student in the U. of the Basque Country
- Assistant professor and clinical researcher ThinkingPerio Research
WEBINAR
WEBINAR
WEBINAR
WEBINAR
WEBINAR
WEBINAR
WEBINAR
WEBINAR
WEBINAR
WEBINAR
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CHALLENGE:
The upper premolar had to be removed due to advanced periodontal disease and severe bone loss around the infected tooth. The bone defect was an intra-alveolar defect without dehiscence or fenestration.
AIM/APPROACH:
An early implant placement approach with a healing time of six weeks before implant placement was chosen. The bone augmentation with Geistlich Bio-Oss Collagen® was conducted simultaneously with implant placement. As this patient was treated in 1991, the case is one of the very first clinical applications of Geistlich Bio-Oss Collagen®
CONCLUSION:
A premolar grafted with Geistlich Bio-Oss Collagen® during implant placement showed good long-term result after 25 years. Satisfactory hard and soft-tissue contour are present 25 years after implantation.
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL SITUATION:
A 60-year-old female presented to the periodontics clinic at UTHSA for implant placement at sites #18 and #19. Upon clinical and radiographic examinations, the lower left edentulous ridge was diagnosed as a Siebert class III due to the presence of bucco-lingual and apico-coronal tissue defects. The treatment proposed included soft tissue grafting for increase of keratinized tissue followed by ridge augmentation using Yxoss CBR®mesh and a mix of autograft, vallos™ fibers, and platelet-rich plasma (PRP)
OUTCOME:
The vallos™ fibers combined with autogenous bone and the PRP created a stable fibrin bone graft that could be easily molded and contained within the mesh. Hydration with PRP was progressive until the graft reached the desired consistency. Wound healing following ridge augmentation was uneventful. There were no signs of infection or membrane exposure at the site. Mesh removal and implant placement is planned at 6-months following ridge augmentation.
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CHALLENGE:
- The planning of the patient’s case takes local and general patient-specific risk factors into consideration according to the principles of backward planning for implant positioning.
AIM/APPROACH:
- Highlights step-by-step the important procedures to regenerate the bone (horizontal and vertical) with the 3-D printing technology, Yxoss CBR®.
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CHALLENGE:
- Insufficient alveolar ridge height for implant placement and proximity to the alveolar nerve
- Autologous bone harvesting is associated with patient discomfort
AIM/APPROACH:
- Interpositional grafting with Geistlich Bio-Oss® Block for vertical augmentation
- Alveolar ridge volume preservation and minimizing patient morbidity
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CHALLENGE:
- Severely atrophied alveolar ridge with insufficient bone volume for implant placement
- High complication rates and patient discomfort associated with large augmentations when using autologous bone grafts
AIM/APPROACH:
- 3-dimensional augmentation of alveolar ridge by the fence technique for implant placement
- At the same time reducing complication rates and patient discomfort
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CHALLENGE:
- Insufficient alveolar ridge width for implant placement
- Autologous bone is subject to resorption and may lead to loss of volume
AIM/APPROACH:
- Ridge Split procedure in combination with Geistlich Bio-Oss® and Geistlich Bio-Gide® for horizontal augmentation
- Preservation of the alveolar ridge volume
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CHALLENGE:
- Insufficient alveolar ridge width for implant placement
- Donor site morbidity after autologous bone block harvesting and resorption of autologous bone
AIM/APPROACH:
- Horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation with Geistlich Bio-Oss® and Geistlich Bio-Gide®
- Minimizing autologous bone harvesting and resorption protection
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CONCLUSIONS:
- Geistlich Mucograft® with a keratinized tissue strip was utilized to increase vestibular depth and gain additional keratinized tissue.
- Augmentation of severely atrophied alveolar ridge provided sufficient bone for implant placement 8 months following augmentation.
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
CLINICAL CASE
