Full-mouth rehabilitation of a patient with cleidocranial dysplasia using immediately loaded basal implant-supported fixed prostheses: A case report

Ahmad, Abdelnasir G.; Osman, Motaz; Awadalkreem, Fadia

doi:10.1016/j.ijscr.2019.11.005

Cited by 22 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This observation could be attributed to the smooth surface of the implant and the small insertion tip that limits the interruption of the blood supply, resulting in the rapid healing of peri-implant soft tissue. [ 27 28 32 ] Petruson[ 49 ] reported normal mucosal conditions with no signs of increased secretion or infection around implants in which the tip penetrated the nasal or maxillary sinus even though the surface of the implants used in their study was rough. [ 49 ]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The polished vertical implant slot prevents adherence of plaque and apical transmission of the bacterial load inside the basal aspect of the implant, far away from the site of bacterial infection (the oral cavity). Our observations confirmed the results of Ihde et al .,[ 31 33 ] Lazarov,[ 27 ] Ahmad et al .,[ 28 ] and Singh et al .,[ 29 ] who recommended this implant design for use at compromised implant sites, such as the maxillary sinus, the floor of the nose (where retrograde peri-implantitis could occur), or extraction sockets. These results are similar to the experimental and clinical results in maxillofacial traumatology and orthognathic surgery, in which penetration of smooth bone screws into the sinus and the nasal aspect of the floor of the nose did not result in any complications, infection, or bone loss.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the past few years, several authors have recommended the use of Corticobasal ® implants to achieve bicortical anchorage (e.g., crest of the ridge and maxillary sinus floor) and to ensure implant stability in patients with severe ridge resorption or compromised bone support. [ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ] Consequently, implants may have exposed to the nasal and maxillary sinuses [ Figure 1 ] with possible challenging effects. Although many studies have reported that Corticobasal ® (BECES ® ) implants have very favorable outcomes with limited and manageable complications,[ 27 28 29 34 35 36 ] there is still some doubt concerning the effect of their penetration into the nasal and maxillary sinuses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of corticobasal implant protrusion inside the nasal and maxillary sinus

Awadalkreem

Ahmad

Ihde

et al. 2020

Ann Maxillofac Surg

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Implant protrusion into the nasal and maxillary sinuses presents a challenge in cases of severely resorbed maxillae. Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic effects of BECES ® implant penetration depth into the nasal and maxillary sinuses. Setting and Design: This was an observational study conducted in a tertiary institution. Materials and Methods: Forty-nine BECES ® implants were inserted into the maxilla of patients who presented with severely resorbed ridges but no history of sinusitis. Forty-five implants protruded into the sinus cavities. Patients were examined clinically and radiographically at 1 week and 3, 6, 12, and 18 months after insertion. Maxillary sinus health, survival and success rates, and peri-implant health were assessed using the plaque index (PI), calculus index, modified gingival index (MGI), and probing pocket depth (PPD). Statistical Analysis: Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann–Whitney test were used in this study. Results: Four (8.16%) of the 45 implants that penetrated the cavities reached the sinus floor without disrupting the membrane; the penetration depth was ≥4 mm in 20 implants (44.44%) and <4 mm in 25 (55.56%). No patient showed clinical or radiographic signs of sinusitis during the observation period. There were significant differences in the PI, MGI, and PPD values between baseline and the 18-month follow-up with no association with the penetration depth. All implants showed radiographically direct bone-to-implant contact. Where the implant tip barely reached the sinus floor, the membrane healed uneventfully while when deeply penetrating the sinus, the membrane healed around the implant but did not cover the tip. All prostheses and implants survived during the observation period. Conclusion: Penetration depth of polished implants with cortical engagement into the maxillary sinus or the floor of the nose does not negatively affect implant survival, the success rate of the treatment, nor peri-implant soft-tissue health. It also does not provoke the development of sinusitis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of corticobasal implant protrusion inside the nasal and maxillary sinus

Awadalkreem

Ahmad

Ihde

et al. 2020

Ann Maxillofac Surg

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The average follow-up time was 34 months (2.8 years), ranging from 6 months to 60 months (5 years). In 4 studies, the follow-up time was more than 12 months, [6,10,17,19] in 2 studies more than 6 months, [3,4] and in 2 studies, the follow-up time is unknown. [12,14] 3.2.2 Fibrous dysplasia (FD) All 5 patients were female and treated with a total of 36 implants.…”

Section: Cleido-cranial Dysplasia (Ccd)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival of dental implants in patients with bone dysplasia: A systematic review

Perez

Dib

Terzic

et al. 2021

DCC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study used published studies to assess the survival rate of dental implants placed in patients with bone dysplasia of the maxillofacial region.Material and methods: An electronic search without a specified date range was performed using the MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. No gender or age restrictions were applied.Results: Eighteen publications were found that met the study’s criteria, reporting data on 18 patients with bone dysplasia including cleidocranial dysplasia (CDD), fibrous dysplasia (FD), florid cemento-osseous dysplasia (FCOD), and odonto-maxillary segmental dysplasia (SOMD), who received a total of 130 implants, an average of 7.2 implants/patient (range 1 to 16). The mean age of the patients was 36.7 years (range 15 to 70 years). For implants placed in bone dysplasia, the survival rates were 100% for patients with CDD (n = 8), FD (n = 5), SOMD (n = 2), FCOD with implants inserted far from the lesions (n = 2) and 0% for dental implants inserted within FCOD (n = 1). The mean follow-up was 38.2 months (min 6, max 60).Conclusions: Dental implants placed in patients with dysplastic bone lesions show high survival rates, similar to those in the general population for CDD, FD, and SOMD. For FCOD, the failure rate was 100%.

show abstract

“…Single piece implants is a method/technology using single piece implants, which are smooth surface, are osseo-fixated in cortical bone/buttress areas with an intention to use them in an immediate loading protocol [ 5 ]. There have been sufficient evidences in support of Single piece jaw implants for restoration of osteopenic jaws, immediate extractions situations with or without infected sockets, atrophic jaws, without expensive and painful grafting procedures as are devoid of immediate complications like graft infection/failure and late complications with conventional/alveolar implantology like abutment screw fractures, loosening, peri-implantits,etc [ 4 , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] ]. Bicortical smooth surface single piece implants have been placed with success in patients with history of periodontitis [ 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immediate rehabilitation of a rheumatoid arthritis patient with single-piece implants

Gaur

Singh²,

Doshi³

et al. 2021

International Journal of Surgery Case Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights Rheumatoid Arthritis is an auto-immune disease that affects the cartilage and small joints of the body. Moreover, it complicates oral therapy due to the associated medication induced xerostomia, accompanying periodontitis and increasing bone-loss which may lead to peri-implantitis with surface treated implants. Hence treating these patients with conventional implants can often pose a challenge to the attending dentist, however making them excellent candidates for smooth surface single piece implants. These bicortical smooth surface single piece implants engage into the cortical bone as well as preclude the use of bone grafts and hence can be safely placed in Rheumatoid Arthritis patients with atrophic jaws successfully. The greatest advantages associated with these implants are that they are placed in a flapless manner with an immediate loading protocol of 72 h. This precludes the need for bone augmentation via additional surgeries as well as the increase costs associated with bone grafting procedures. It also reduces overall chairside appointments thereby making it a convenient treatment alternative for the patient.

show abstract

Full-mouth rehabilitation of a patient with cleidocranial dysplasia using immediately loaded basal implant-supported fixed prostheses: A case report

Cited by 22 publications

References 9 publications

Effects of corticobasal implant protrusion inside the nasal and maxillary sinus

Effects of corticobasal implant protrusion inside the nasal and maxillary sinus

Survival of dental implants in patients with bone dysplasia: A systematic review

Immediate rehabilitation of a rheumatoid arthritis patient with single-piece implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About