No abstract

Background Bone height assessment alone is frequently used to guide rehabilitation choice, without consideration for soft tissues or adjacent teeth. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of different preoperative cleft assessments on implant success and patient satisfaction. Methods The study involved a retrospective assessment of records from 40 patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP). The alveolar cleft score (ACS; clinical criteria), interdental alveolar bone height (IABH) score (radiological criteria), patient compliance score (dental hygiene, medical visit observance, and smoking), and a novel combined score (IABH-ACS-Compliance) were assessed from patient records. Patients who required prosthetic tooth rehabilitation in the cleft dental arch space were included. Twenty-six patients (Group 1) were treated with dental implants, and 14 patients (Group 2) selected another prosthetic option (fixed prosthodontics, removal prosthesis), orthodontic space closure, or no rehabilitation. The main outcomes measured were relative implant success (no implant loss involving marginal bone loss ≤ 1.9 mm) for patients treated with dental implant therapy (Group 1) and patient satisfaction for all patients (Groups 1 and 2). Results Forty dental implants were placed in the patients in Group 1. Four implants in four patients (Group 1 relative failure, RF) were lost (implant survival rate of 90%) after 36 (± 12.4) months of follow-up. Twenty-two patients who received implants belonged to the relative implant success group (Group 1 RS). The average “IABH-ACS-Compliance” scores were significantly different (p < 0.05): 16.90 ± 2.35 and 12.75 ± 0.43 for the Group 1 RS and RF groups, respectively. Conclusions Preoperative cleft parameters have an impact on relative implant success and patient satisfaction. The new cleft assessment combined-score (“IABH-ACS-Compliance”) allows an accurate selection of cleft cases eligible for dental implants, thereby improving postoperative outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract

--Introduction: Peri implantitis can be identified by classic clinical and radiographic signs. The aim of this case was to show an original exophytic lesion appeared 8 years after the implantation in the mandibular symphysis. Observations: The patient has been implanted on symphyseal site 8 years ago. The lesion was exophytic and located around mobile implant in right mandible. First curative surgical resection was performed under local anesthesia, combined with explantation of mobile implants. Histhopathological exam identified a giants cells granuloma. A second surgical removal was necessary under general anesthesia because of a severe recurrence. Discussion: The goal of this clinical case was to emphasize the possible correlation between inflammatory peri implantits context and giants cells granuloma. Others techniques could be used to manage this case.