BIOBRIEF

Prosthetically Guided Regeneration (PGR) in the Posterior Maxilla

Paolo Casentini, DDS

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.

Baseline full-mouth intra-oral view: the residual maxillary teeth were preliminarily reconstructed with a composite mock-up. The horizontal atrophy of the posterior areas of the maxilla is clearly visible.

The cone beam, realized with a radio-opaque diagnostic template, shows inadequate bone volume for implant placement in all the analyzed sites.

The use of the diagnostic template during the augmentation procedure helps to highlight the presence of bone defects in relationship to the restorative plan and future position of implants.

Large Geistlich Bio-Oss® particles are directly applied inside the sinus with Geistlich Bio-Oss Pen®.

The Geistlich Bio-Gide®, fixed with titanium pins is used to protect and stabilize the augmented site. As the surgical template shows, the bone augmentation is based on the future restorative project following the principle of PGR.

The same surgical procedure is performed on the left posterior side of the maxilla.

Cone-beam 6 months after surgery and prior to implant placement. The relationship between the template used for diagnosis and the bone crest reveals adequate bone volume to place implants in the correct prosthetically driven position.

Implant placement was guided by the same template utilized for diagnosis and bone augmentation.

Final view of the prosthetic reconstruction demonstrates bio-mimetic integration of implant-supported prostheses and ceramic veneers bonded to residual natural teeth.

The panoramic radiograph shows adequate integration of the implants and absence of peri-implant bone resorption.

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.

Patient satisfaction is my driver for excellence. That’s why I always apply the Prosthetically Guided Regeneration principle together with Geistlich Biomaterials: proven and predictable long-term patient success.
Paolo Casentini, DDS

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

Tamir Wardany, D.D.S.

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.

download pdf

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.

6 months following horizontal ridge augmentation, using Dr. Urban’s sausage technique, we re-entered the site for implant placement using a full thickness flap with no vertical incisions, to not disrupt collateral blood supply. There is excellent bone volume, but a very thin vertical soft tissue volume over the crest of the implant site.

Straumann implants are placed in sites #4 and #5 to a 25Ncm torque value with no issues and the cover screws were placed.

Geistlich Fibro-Gide® is placed crestally over the implants and draped to the buccal and slightly towards the lingual. Geistlich Fibro-Gide® was trimmed slightly to minimize the thickness of the material.

The flap was released so that we can achieve tension-free primary closure over the implant and the Geistlich Fibro-Gide® soft tissue augmentation site.

Following an 8 week healing period, we make a crestal incision and lay a conservative full-thickness flap to uncover the implants. We observe a 3-4 mm increase in verticle soft tissue thickness over the implant site.

We allow 3 weeks following the initial uncovering and can now see beautiful soft tissue architecture surrounding the implants.

Prior to the restorative process we see the pre-restorative radiograph with the healing abutments in place and we can also observe excellent crestal bone levels around the implants.

1 year follow-up. The restorative dentist opted to splint the crowns together. The patient did not want implants posterior to this area and he did not want any sinus augmentation as he had a history of sinus issues.

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.

Thin vertical soft tissue over the implant site following ridge augmentation is one of the key factors which may lead to crestal bone loss around the implants that will be placed.
Tamir Wardany, D.D.S.

I find the Mini-Me Periosteal to be my most versatile instrument for all my hard and soft tissue cases. I always have this instrument out on my surgical tray.
Tamir Wardany, D.D.S.

Beginning with thin soft tissue, we were able to achieve very thick and healthy vertical soft tissue over the implants, which will improve blood flow to the bone and minimize crestal bone loss in future.
Tamir Wardany, D.D.S.

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

Hector L. Sarmiento, D.M.D., MSc.

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

download pdf

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.

Initial situation, patient presented with radiographic and clinically traditional signs of peri-implantitis, including bleeding on probing, suppuration, radiographic progressive bone loss and clinical pathologic probing depths.

Mechanical debridement was achieved using titanium scalers, an ultrasonic device with an implant protective cap and titanium brushes to remove all of the visible contaminants of the implant surface. Citric acid was then placed on shreds of a non-woven gauze and applied to the surface for approx. 1min. Copious irrigation was done using saline solution and the surface was ablated using the Er:YAG laser at 20pps/50mj.

After the surface was prepped and no signs of residual granulation tissue was noted, the defect was grafted with Geistlich Bio-Oss®. Attention was given towards not augmenting beyond the bony envelope.

A protective Geistlich Bio-Gide® membrane was placed over Geistlich Bio-Oss®.

Geistlich Fibro-Gide® was placed over Geistlich Bio-Gide® to enhance soft-tissue volume and quality. Geistlich Fibro-Gide® was trimmed and adapted to the defect site ensuring a tension free closure.

Geistlich Fibro-Gide® was place on the top of the bone graft to enhance soft-tissue thickness. Geistlich Fibro-Gide® is porous. We can observe the rapid penetration of blood through the matrix.

Closure with a tension-free flap was achieved by releasing incisions and secured using 4-0 chromic gut sutures.

1.5 year post-operative photo and radiograph show the healing of the soft-tissues with no signs of peri-implantitis and adequate tissue thickening. Radiographic bone levels have maintained stable over the course of the year.

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.

Geistlich Fibro-Gide^® was utilized to enhance the soft-tissues during a regenerative peri-implantitis approach. In my opinion, healthy, thick soft-tissue is easier for a patient to maintain and creates a better environment for long-term survival.
Hector L. Sarmiento, D.M.D., MSc.

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.