EVALUATION OF INTERCHANGEABLE GUIDE IN MINIMALLY INVASIVE RIDGE SPLITTING WITH SIMULTANEOUS IMPLANT PLACEMENT (A PROSPECTIVE CLINICAL STUDY) | ||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||
| Article 4, Volume 46, Issue 3, December 2021, Pages 21-28 PDF (1.23 M) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.35467.1083 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Sameh O. Elkholy* 1; Abdelaziz F. Khalil2; Ahmed O. Sweedan3 | ||
| 1Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt | ||
| 2Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt | ||
| 3Lecturer of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Background: The conventional ridge splitting technique offers a feasible and more consistent approach for the challenging narrow alveolar ridge. However, this entails raising of a complete flap to allow an adequate visibility of the osseous defect resulting in disturbance of vascular supply and risk of bone resorption. Stereolithography helps the manufacture of surgical guides using 3D generated models for an accurate placement of implants with minimal invasiveness thus preserving the periosteum. Objectives: To assess the precision of dental implant placement in narrow ridges after ridge splitting minimally invasive technique using an interchangeable guide. Materials and Methods: A prospective study was including 5 patients with anterior maxillary narrow ridge. All patients were selected to suit the proposed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Ridge split procedure was performed for all selected subjects assisted with the surgical guide with simultaneous placement of implants. Patients were evaluated by clinical and radiographical assessments with an average of 6 months follow up. Results: 8 implants were placed. Angular deviations with an average of 2.61 ± 1.46 degrees. The mean values of the horizontal deviation at the coronal and apex sides of the implant were 0.70 ± 0.46 mm and 0.98 ± 0.35 mm. While the Vertical deviations (V) with an average of 0.39 ± 0.29 mm. There were statistically significant differences between preoperative, immediate postoperative and 6 months postoperative values of bone width and density. Conclusions: Alveolar ridge split technique assisted with an interchangeable surgical guide is a feasible and reliable method for placement of dental implants | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Ridge splitting; Surgical guide; 3D planning; Minimally invasive technique; Immediate implant | ||
| References | ||
|
Takeshita F, Suetsugu T. Accurate presurgical determination for implant placement by using computerized tomography scan. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;76:590-1.
Scipioni A, Bruschi GB, Calesini G. The edentulous ridge expansion technique: a five-year study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1994;14:451-9.
Von Arx T, Kurt B. Implant placement and simultaneous ridge augmentation using autogenous bone and a micro titanium mesh: A prospective clinical study with 20 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res.1999;10:24-33.
Chiapasco M, Zaniboni M, Boisco M. Augmentation procedures for the rehabilitation of deficient edentulous ridges with oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17:136-59.
Castillo R. Horizontal ridge augmentation before placing implants using a double-bone, double resorbable membrane technique: Two clinical cases. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2010;5:340-56.
Mechery R, Thiruvalluvan N, Sreehari AK. Ridge split and implant placement in deficient alveolar ridge: Case report and an update. Contemp Clin Dent. 2015;6:94-7.
Israelson H, Plemons JM, Watkins P, Sory C. Barium-coated surgical stents and computer-assisted tomography in the preoperative assessment of dental implant patients. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1992;12:52-61.
Greenstein G, Cavallaro J. The relationship between biological concepts and fabrication of surgical guides for dental implant placement. Compend Contin Edu Dent. 2007;28:196-204.
Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A. The use of computer guided flapless implant surgery and four implants placed in immediate function to support a fixed denture: preliminary results after a mean follow-up period of thirteen months. J Prosth Dent. 2007;97:S26-34.
Richardson D, Cawood JI. Anterior maxillary osteoplasty to broaden the narrow maxillary ridge. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1991;20:342-8.
Zhang W, Skrypczak A, Weltman R. Anterior maxilla alveolar ridge dimension and morphology measurement by cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) for immediate implant treatment planning. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15:65.
Forsell M, Sjögren P, Johansson O. Need of assistance with daily oral hygiene measures among nursing home resident elderly versus the actual assistance received from the staff. Open Dent J. 2009;3:241-4.
Sivapathasundharam B. Shafer's Text Book of Oral Pathology. 8th ed. India: Elsevier; 2016.
Abramson JH. Cornell medical index as an epidemiologic tool. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1966;56:287-98.
Wilson D, Wakefield M, Owen N, Roberts L. Characteristics of heavy smokers. Prev Med. 1992;21:311-9.
Chasioti E, Sayed M, Drew H. Novel Techniques with the Aid of a Staged CBCT Guided Surgical Protocol. Case Rep Dent.
2015;2015:439706.
Di Giacomo GA, Cury PR, de Araujo NS, Sendyk WR, Sendyk CL. Clinical application of stereolithographic surgical guides for
implant placement: preliminary results. J Periodontol. 2005;76:503-7.
Cunha RM, Souza FA, Hadad H, Poli PP, Maiorana C, Carvalho PSP. Accuracy evaluation of computer-guided implant surgery
associated with prototyped surgical guides. J Prosthet Dent. 2020; S0022-3913(19)30486-X.
Farley NE, Kennedy K, McGlumphy EA, Clelland NL. Split-mouth comparison of the accuracy of computer-generated and
conventional surgical guides. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28:563-72.
Schneider D, Marquardt P, Zwahlen M, Jung RE. A systematic review on the accuracy and the clinical outcome of computer-
guided template-based implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:73-86.
D'haese J, Van De Velde T, Komiyama A, Hultin M, De Bruyn H. Accuracy and complications using computer-designed
stereolithographic surgical guides for oral rehabilitation by means of dental implants: a review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent
Relat Res. 2012;14:321-35.
Mustafa MN, Khalil AF, Melek LN. Evaluation of piezotomed alveolar ridge splitting with stereolithographic surgical guide for
implant placement (clinical study). FDJ. 2017;3:47-54.
Cassetta M, Di Mambro A, Di Giorgio G, Stefanelli LV, Barbato E. The Influence of the Tolerance between Mechanical
Components on the Accuracy of Implants Inserted with a Stereolithographic Surgical Guide: A Retrospective Clinical Study. Clin
Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17:580-8.
NeugebauerJ,TrainiT,ThamsU,PiattelliA,ZöllerJE.Peri-implantboneorganizationunderimmediateloadingstate.Circularly
polarized light analyses: aminipig study. J Periodontol. 2006;77:152-60.
Ewers R, Schicho K, Undt G, Wanschitz F, Truppe M, Seemann R, et al. Basic research and 12 years of clinical experience in
computer-assisted navigation technology: a review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;34:1-8
Guillemant H, Mouigha A, Vienne A, Libersa JC, Ferri J. Contribution and limitations of MIS(R) screwed expanders in the jaws:
illustration from clinical cases and comparison of the osseous volume from three-dimensional radiographic pictures. Rev Stomatol
Chir Maxillofac. 2012;113:448-54.
Kumar D, Sivaram G, Shivakumar B, Kumar T. Comparative evaluation of soft and hard tissue changes following endosseous
implant placement using flap and flapless techniques in the posterior edentulous areas of the mandible-a randomized controlled
trial. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;22:215-23.
Widmann G, Bale JR. Accuracy in computer-aided implant surgery --a review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21:305-13.
| ||
|
Statistics Article View: 361 PDF Download: 712 |
||
