BIOBRIEF

Immediate Mandibular Molar Transition

Dr. Peter Hunt

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

download pdf

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.

This procedure really just merges a socket regeneration procedure with implant placement. It’s a simple and effective procedure which has now become quite standard for us.”
Dr. Peter Hunt

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

Dr. Richard E. Bauer, III

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

download pdf

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.

A flap has been raised and reveals a significant facial and palatal defect at congenitally missing site #10.

Harvested ramal graft. Slightly over-sized to allow for mitering and harvest of particulate autograft with a bone trap on the suction.

Onlay graft now secured with two fixation screws (Stryker) with a lag screw technique. Geistlich Bio-Oss Collagen® has been placed on the palatal aspect of site #10

Combination of a fixated onlay graft with Geistlich Bio-Oss®/autograft particulate graft at the periphery and over the facial plate of the adjacent dentition

Geistlich Mucograft® matrix placed over facial augmentation of the adjacent dentition and ridge crest of the augmented site

Closure following ramal grafting and Geistlich Mucograft®matrix application

Implant placement with static guide and dental implant hand driver

Implant placement with slight subcrestal placement of the platform just prior to osteoplasty by the periodontist.

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.

“Immediate provisional in place two days after implant placement and osteoplasty. There has been significant gain in bony architecture and development of soft-tissue contours at a site that was extremely deficient of structure to begin with.”
Dr. Richard E. Bauer, III

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

Enhance Periodontal Phenotype with Geistlich Mucograft® for Soft Tissue Augmentation

Allison Rascon, D.D.S., M.S.

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

Note: The patient‘s keratinized tissue is inadequate (<2 mm) and the recession on the canines can be classified as RT 1 defects.

download pdf

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 mid-facial incision was made, with the intent to preserve the minimal keratinized tissue that was available, as well as vertical incisions along the line angles of the canines to reflect a partial thickness flap.

Platelet-rich fibrin clots were formed by centrifugation. The leukocyte-PRF (L-PRF) was extracted, and the L-PRF was used to hydrate Geistlich Mucograft®

Geistlich Mucograft® and PRF stabilized via glycolon sutures.

Clinical situation at three-week follow up.

Occlusal view at twelve-month follow up.

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.

Soft tissue procedures are technique sensitive and success requires appropriate graft size and thickness, recipient bed preparation, and adequate stabilization. Having a xenograft matrix provides control over having the necessary graft dimensions, without requiring a second surgical site, and it’s easy-handling properties ensure placement and stability are done in a predictable manner.
Allison Rascon, D.D.S, M.S

With adequate recipient bed preparation, the ease of manipulation with the hydrated xenograft matrix allowed for intimate adaptation, and the overlaying PRF was easily compressed against Geistlich Mucograft^®. At twelve months follow up, stable soft tissue dimensions are observed with adequate thickness, as well as esthetically appropriate blend of the tissue color and texture.
Allison Rascon, D.D.S, M.S

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

Dr. Alberto Ortiz-Vigón

Dr. Erik Regidor Correa

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

download pdf

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

Pathological peri-implant pocket depth combined with bleeding on probing.

Partial thickness flap in order to create a periosteal bed free of any muscle attachment and apically positioned.

Implantoplasty of the exposed rough implant surface using burs and silicon carbide polishers.

Xenogeneic collagen matrix structure (Geistlich Mucograft®).

Future position of the xenogeneic collagen matrix facilitated by prosthodontic abutment.

Suture of xenogeneic collagen matrix around the abutment and over the recipient bed.

Buccal view of xenogeneic collagen matrix and apically positioned flap.

Occlusal view of xenogeneic collagen matrix and apically positioned flap.

Lateral view of xenogeneic collagen matrix and apically positioned flap.

Peri-implant tissue health and maintenance of keratinized tissue after one year of surgical treatment.

Periimplant tissue health and maintenance of keratinized tissue after 2 years

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.

The use of Geistlich Mucograft® xenogeneic collagen matrix for regeneration of oral mucosa, combined with the surgical respective approach to peri-implantitis provides an improvement in clinical parameters and increase of the peri-implant keratinized mucosa minimizing the risk of recession in the esthetic area.
Dr. Erik Regidor Correa & Dr. Alberto Ortiz-Vigón

The use of soft-tissue substitutes may play an important role in patient perception and satisfaction without jeopardizing the final clinical outcome.
Dr. Erik Regidor Correa & Dr. Alberto Ortiz-Vigón

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

CLINICAL CASE

1 – Extraction of tooth 21 due to a trauma with concomitant external resorptions. Care was taken in preserving the alveolar bone.

2 – Crestal view of the socket after tooth extraction. No flaps are raised around the affected area. A slight buccal bone defect was observed.

3 – The socket is gently curetted for removal of granulation tissue. Subsequently, the wound margins were de-epithelialized with a diamond in a counter piece with water cooling

4 – Filling of the extraction socket with Geistlich Bio-Oss® Collagen to the level of the palatal bone

5 – After measuring the alveole, Geistlich Mucograft® is punched (8 mm diameter

6 – The Geistlich Mucograft® punch is placed on top of Geistlich Bio-Oss® Collagen to seal the filled alveole.

7 – Suturing of the Geistlich Mucograft® with 6-0 single interrupted sutures.

8 – Nice healing of the soft tissues 1 week after extraction.

9 – Situation 7.5 months after extraction revealing nice soft tissue situation with a slight dip at the buccal aspect.

CLINICAL CASE

1 – Pre-operative situation, tooth #7 with periapical infection and horizontal fracture.

2 – CT Scan showing tooth #7 with significant bone loss.

3 – Occlusal view of the clinical situation prior to extraction of tooth #7.

4 – Extraction socket with Geistlich Bio-Oss Collagen® in place.

5 – Geistlich Mucograft® Seal is placed over the extraction socket and secured with single interrupted sutures.

6 – 3 months post-operative: soft tissue healing at the time of implant placement.

7 – Buccal view showing excellent soft tissue healing and keratinized tissue.

9 – 2 years post-operative: final restoration in place.

CLINICAL CASE

Initial Situation: a failing mandibular molar with a vertical sub-osseous fracture.

A pre-operative radiograph and CBCT showing the cross-section of the involved tooth.

An implant site was developed by placing a pilot drill down the mesial root space, then uprighting it. This was continued up through the drill sequence. The mesial radicular septum is moved in the process.

A Camlog® 5.0 x 11 mm implant was placed with the platform set just down below the bone height of the socket walls.

After placing a 4.0 mm height cylindrical gingiva former in the implant, 250 mg of Geistlich Bio-Oss Collagen® was packed down in the socket around the implant.

Geistlich Mucograft® was adapted to the region then tucked down under the gingival margin.

The gingival margins were adapted and closed together with 4.0 teflon sutures (Cytoplast™, Osteogenics). The region was then covered with Glustich – PeriAcryl®90 Oral Tissue Adhesive.

4 months later following Emergence Profile Development.

An occlusal view of the final onepiece, screw-retained zirconia crown restoration based on a Camlog® Titanium Base Abutment.

CLINICAL CASE

1 – Pre-operative lateral smile showing the recession defect of tooth 5.

2 – Pre-operative image of recession defect (tooth 5).

3 – After elevation of split-full-split flap the interdental papillae are de-epithelialized.

4 – Geistlich Mucograft® is placed over the root and sutured to the papillae

5 – The flap is mobilized, coronally advanced and sutured completely covering the Geistlich Mucograft®.

6 – Healing of the surgical site 2 weeks after surgery.

7 – Surgical site 6 months after surgery.

9 – Lateral smile 1 year after surgery showing the optimal esthetic outcome.

CLINICAL CASE

1 – Before preparation of the flap the exposed root portion is cleaned with a scraper and is wiped with EDTA (or similar).

2 – After measuring the dimension of the recession defect using a periodontal probe, the incisions for raising the flap are cut.

3 – A split-full-split thickness flap is elevated and coronally mobilized.

4 – The area of the papillae is de-epithelialized to allow anchorage of the flap coronal to the cemento-enamel junction.

5 – Geistlich Mucograft®is applied dry to the defect and is fixed with 4 single sutures.

6 – The coronally advanced flap is sutured over Geistlich Mucograft®.

7 – Nice, uneventful healing 15 days post-operatively at suture removal.

8 – Soft tissue situation immediately after suture removal.

9 – Complete root coverage 7 months after surgery. Note the excellent color match.

CLINICAL CASE

1 – Pre-operative image showing the recession defect on tooth #6.

2 – After elevation of a partial thickness flap, the interdental papillae are de-epithelialized.

3 – Geistlich Mucograft® is placed over the defect and sutured to the papillae.

4 – The flap is coronally advanced and sutured completely covering the matrix.

5 – Follow-up after 1 week: healing of the surgical site.

8 – Follow-up after 6 months: note the natural appearance of the soft tissue achieved with Geistlich Mucograft®.

CLINICAL CASE

1 – Pre-operative picture of the area intended to treat. Note the thin biotype.

2 – Initial situation showing Miller Class I defects on region 4 (3 mm) and 5 (2 mm).

3 – A split-full-split thickness flap without releasing incisions is elevated.

4 – The anatomical papillae are de epithelialized.

5 – The collagen matrix Geistlich Mucograft® is placed under the flap.

6 – Immediate post-operative situation after suturing of the flap covering Geistlich Mucograft® completely

7 – Follow-up picture 2 weeks after surgery.

8 – Nice healing of the site 1.5 months post-operative.

9 – Pleasant esthetic outcome 7 months after surgery.

CLINICAL CASE

1 – Pre-operative view of recession defects that ranges from 2-5 mm. There is minimal keratinized tissue on #14. Pocket depths are within limits with no loss of interproximal tissue.

2 – A 15c blade is used to make sulcular incisions with scooping incisions at the level of the CEJ. A combination flap consisting of full-thickness coronally followed by a partial-thickness dissection apically is reflected.

3 – The papillary tissue is de-epithelialized with a football diamond bur on a rotary hand piece. This exposes a vascular bed for the graft and intended coronal positioning of the flap.

4 – Side-view of the recession defects. It is clearly visible how deep the recession defects are.

5 – Geistlich Mucograft® is trimmed and positioned to extend beyond the root surfaces. A combination of simple interrupted sutures at its coronal edge and mattress sutures extending over the entire graft are used to adapt the graft to the recipient site.

6 – The flap is then advanced and coronally positioned with horizontal mattress sutures to release tension and simple interrupted sutures to approximate the flap edges to the de-epithelialized papillas.

7 – Follow-up after 1 week: note that the flap margins appear stable. Erythema and edema evident with maturation of the tissue beginning.

8 – Follow-up after 3 months: maturation of the tissue evident with complete root coverage. An increase in the zone of keratinized tissue by #14 is also visible.

9 – Follow-up after 1 year: stability of the graft is evident, complete coverage and a healthy and maintainable gingival situation have been achieved.

CLINICAL CASE

1 – This case shows a shallow vestibule and almost no keratinized tissue on the lower crestal part. The horizontal incision has to be made within the keratinized tissue (see depicted line).

2 – Ensure the incision is within the keratinized tissue: an apically fixed split flap is used here. Remove the muscles, scar fibers and ligaments before application of Geistlich Mucograft®.

3 – Measure the defect carefully with a periodontal probe and cut Geistlich Mucograft® in a dry state. In the case of a large vestibuloplasty, several pieces of Geistlich Mucograft® can be sutured side by side.

4 – Geistlich Mucograft® is sutured directly onto the periosteum with 5.0 resorbable sutures and left exposed for open healing (healed by secondary intention).

5 – 10 days post-operative: favorable healing where granulation tissue and new soft tissues have formed.

6 – 1 month post-operative: excellent wound healing with complete integration and epithelialization of Geistlich Mucograft® as well as keratinization of the crestal aspect could be observed.

7 – 3 months post-operative: excellent esthetic outcome with full integration and epithelialization of Geistlich Mucograft® to the surrounding tissue and keratinization of the crestal aspect.

8 – 1 year post-operative: the formed keratinized tissue fulfills its functionality and shows an esthetically pleasing result matching the structure and color of the surrounding tissues. The mean width of the peri-implant keratinized mucosa was 4.0 mm, and a low shrinkage was assessed at 38%.

9 – 5 years post-operative: the mucogingival appearance remains stable. The resulting keratinized tissue fulfills its functionality and shows an esthetically pleasing result.

CLINICAL CASE

1 – Pre-operative view. A small band of keratinized gingiva is present

2 – The band of keratinized gingiva is split and a split-thickness flap is elevated exposing connective tissue and periosteum.

3 – Geistlich Mucograft®is sutured to the recipient bed and left exposed.

4 – Follow-up after 1 week: the area appears to granulate underneath the fibrin clot.

5 – Follow-up after 4 weeks: excellent wound healing.

8 – Follow-up after 6 months: Lugol’s iodine staining indicates delineating keratinized tissue.

9 – Follow-up after 6 months: mucogingival appearance with 4 mm of keratinized tissue.

CLINICAL CASE

1 – Pre-operative view of the atrophied ridge.

2 – Application of a 1:1 mixture of autologous bone and Geistlich Bio-Oss®.

3 – Geistlich Bio-Gide® is tightly fixed and pinned, thus immobilizing the particulate graft. The sausage-like augmentation allows extended horizontal augmentation.

4 – Primary wound closure is obtained with a combination of mattress and single-interrupted sutures.

5 – Sufficient amount of augmented bone for implant placement 8 months after augmentation. Implants are placed in a submerged procedure.

6 – Insufficient vestibular depth and keratinized tissue after alveolar ridge augmentation.

7 – Application of a keratinized strip towards the vestibulum and Geistlich Mucograft® over the augmented area where it is left exposed for healing.

8 – Situation before reopening for abutment connection after 3 months showing increased vestibular depth

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.