Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Nov 5;38(1):41. eCollection 2016 Dec.

Minimal invasive horizontal ridge augmentation using subperiosteal tunneling technique.

Author information

1
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 300 Gumi-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam City, Gyunggi-do South Korea.
2
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 300 Gumi-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam City, Gyunggi-do South Korea ; Department of Dentistry & Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Daehak-ro 101, Jongno-gu, Seoul South Korea.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The goal of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the prognosis of minimal invasive horizontal ridge augmentation (MIHRA) technique using small incision and subperiosteal tunneling technique.

METHODS:

This study targeted 25 partially edentulous patients (10 males and 15 females, mean age 48.8 ± 19.7 years) who needed bone graft for installation of the implants due to alveolar bone deficiency. The patients took the radiographic exam, panoramic and periapical view at first visit, and had implant fixture installation surgery. All patients received immediate or delayed implant surgery with bone graft using U-shaped incision and tunneling technique. After an average of 2.8 months, the prosthesis was connected and functioned. The clinical prognosis was recorded by observation of the peri-implant tissue at every visit. A year after restoration, the crestal bone loss around the implant was measured by taking the follow-up radiographs. One patient took 3D-CT before bone graft, after bone graft, and 2 years after restoration to compare and analyze change of alveolar bone width.

RESULTS:

This study included 25 patients and 39 implants. Thirty eight implants (97.4 %) survived. As for postoperative complications, five patients showed minor infection symptoms, like swelling and tenderness after bone graft. The other one had buccal fenestration, and secondary bone graft was done by the same technique. No complications related with bone graft were found except in these patients. The mean crestal bone loss around the implants was 0.03 mm 1 year after restoration, and this was an adequate clinical prognosis. A patient took 3D-CT after bone graft, and the width of alveolar bone increased 4.32 mm added to 4.6 mm of former alveolar bone width. Two years after bone graft, the width of alveolar bone was 8.13 mm, and this suggested that the resorption rate of bone graft material was 18.29 % during 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS:

The bone graft material retained within a pouch formed using U-shaped incision and tunneling technique resulted with a few complications, and the prognosis of the implants placed above the alveolar bone was adequate.

KEYWORDS:

Alveolar bone grafting; Alveolar ridge augmentation; Dental implants; Minimally invasive surgical procedures

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center