No abstract

No abstract

Introduction The epithelialized palatal graft (EPG), introduced in 1963, has persisted as the gold standard for gingival augmentation, and in the present era, mucosal augmentation around dental implants has become an important concern. A limited body of evidence suggests peri‐implant mucosal augmentation may favorably impact bone and mucosal stability and peri‐implant health under some circumstances. Although more contemporary procedures for peri‐implant mucosal augmentation are often preferred based on convenience and esthetic considerations, EPG augmentation at dental implant sites is distinguishable from methods which do not deepen the vestibule and eliminate unfavorable superficial soft tissue. Implant sites augmented with EPG are qualitatively distinct from sites augmented using other methods. Case Series Seven generally healthy patients received EPG augmentation before dental implant placement, at implant placement, before implant uncovering, or after implant uncovering. In each case, the patient exhibited a favorable zone of attached peri‐implant mucosa following treatment. Conclusions Reliable mucosal augmentation with EPG is achievable at multiple phases in the course of dental implant therapy. EPG augmentation offers distinct clinical advantages and may be preferable to other mucosal augmentation strategies at some dental implant sites.

No abstract

Introduction Introduction of a surgical insult in conjunction with orthodontic therapy has been shown to accelerate treatment in minor tooth movement and comprehensive orthodontic cases by induction of the regional acceleratory phenomenon (RAP). When applying this concept to a molar tipped into an adjacent edentulous site, a dental implant can be planned to anchor the movement. Case Presentation A generally and periodontally healthy 25‐year‐old patient presented missing tooth #19, with tooth #18 mesially tipped into the first molar crown space. A dental implant was placed in the #19 position. Following osseointegration, the implant anchored orthodontic movement of the adjacent tooth, which was initiated in conjunction with third molar extraction. Conclusion Favorable biomechanics for molar uprighting can be achieved using an osseointegrated implant and a customized orthodontic device. The presented technique facilitates implant site development without delaying placement of the fixture and simplifies fabrication of a harmonious and anatomic implant‐supported restoration. Induction of the RAP may hasten treatment completion.