Bone and Soft Tissue Augmentation in Implantology

Fig 2-29fDiagnostic wax-up for the maxilla.

Fig 2-29gFollowing the wax-up, a vertical bone augmentation is not necessary in the right maxilla.

Fig 2-29hWax-up of the left maxilla shows the extent of the required vertical bone augmentation.

Fig 2-29iSlight increase of the vertical bite dimension with temporary restorations and composite reconstructions on the remaining teeth.

Fig 2-29jPanoramic radiograph with surgical templates: the vertical bone atrophy is clearly visible in the premolar area of the left maxilla.

Fig 2-29kVertical bone deficit in the left maxilla.

Fig 2-29lVertical bone augmentation with simultaneous insertion of two XiVE implants.

Fig 2-29mInsertion of a 3-mm XiVE implant at the area of the right lateral incisor.

Fig 2-29nExtremely thin alveolar ridge in the anterior mandible.

Fig 2-29oBone harvesting apical of the atrophied alveolar ridge.

Fig 2-29pBone block grafting in the anterior mandible.

Fig 2-29qInsertion of four XiVE implants with a 3-mm diameter in the grafted area 3 months postoperatively.

Fig 2-29rPanoramic radiograph 4 years postoperatively.

Fig 2-29sClinical situation 4 years postoperatively. Thin mucosa region (41 and 42) was later augmented using a connective tissue graft.

Fig 2-29tClinical situation of the restored implants in the left maxilla.

Fig 2-29uControl radiograph 4 years postoperatively of the restored implants in the vertically grafted left maxilla.

Fig 2-29vClinical situation in the right maxilla 4 years postoperatively.

Fig 2-29wControl radiograph 16 years postoperatively demonstrating a stable peri-implant bone level.

Fig 2-29xClinical appearance of the restored implants in the right maxilla 16 years postoperatively.

Fig 2-29ySimilar stability in the left maxilla.

1. Gesetz zum Schutz vor der schädlichen Wirkung ionisierender Strahlung (Strahlenschutzgesetz StrlSchG). Bundesgesetzblatt Teil 1 S 1966, 2017.

2. Verordnung zum Schutz vor der schädlichen Wirkung ionisierender Strahlung (Strahlenschutzverordnung – StrlSchV). Bundesgesetzblatt Teil 1 S 2034, 2018: 2034–2208.

3. Alfadda SA. Current evidence on dental implants outcomes in smokers and nonsmokers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Implantol 2018;44:390–399.

4. Alsaadi G, Quirynen M, Michiles K, Teughels W, Komárek A, van Steenberghe D. Impact of local and systemic factors on the incidence of failures up to abutment connection with modified surface oral implants. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:51–57.

5. Arai Y, Tammisalo E, Iwai K, Hashimoto K, Shinoda K. Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999;28: 245–248.

6. Baig MR, Rajan M. Effects of smoking on the outcome of implant treatment: a literature review. Indian J Dent Res 2007;18:190–195.

7. Barnea E, Alt I, Kolerman R, Nissan J. Accuracy of a laboratory-based computer implant guiding system. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 109:e6–e10.

8. Berger C, Engels HB. Kapitel B Qualitätsleitlinie “Implantologie” des BDIZ. In BDIZ (ed) Indikation enossaler Implantate in Gutachterhandbuch Implantologie, Breisach: Med. Verl.- und Informationsdienste, 2002; 59–74.

9. Bindl A, Ritter L, Mehl A. Digital 3-D implant planning: Cerec meets Galileos. Int J Comput Dent 2010;13: 221–231.

10. Boquete-Castro A, Gómez-Moreno G, Calvo-Guirado JL, Aguilar-Salvatierra A, Delgado-Ruiz RA. Denosumab and osteonecrosis of the jaw. A systematic analysis of events reported in clinical trials. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:367–375.