Hard- and soft-tissue management with innovative products
by Dr. Giacomo Tarquini
Introduction
Implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation
in the presence of significant
horizontal bone defects requires
particular care and skill from the oral
surgeon. Even if it is possible to place
implants, the presence of the defect,
typically on the buccal, may jeopardize
the rehabilitation’s functional and
aesthetic success in both the short
and long term. In such cases, it is often
necessary to perform a peri-implant
bone regeneration procedure at the
same time.
Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is
one of the best-documented procedures
to achieve that result: It entails
the placement of a barrier membrane
between epithelial and connective
tissues on one side and implants and
bone on the other side to create a
protected space for the blood clot to
form and organize, thus allowing bone
cells coming from marrow spaces to
repopulate the defect and to mature
into new bone.
Ideally, barrier membranes used
in GBR should have features that
allow them to suitably protect the
bone tissue long enough for the bone
regeneration to be completed. They
are chosen based on the anatomical
characteristics of the defect,
including its size, the number of bony
walls and the available surface of
viable bone.
Nonresorbable barriers, mostly
made of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene
(e-PTFE), are highly
successful for GBR procedures but
have some drawbacks, including the
need for a second surgical procedure
for their removal and their tendency
to become exposed into the
oral cavity. Resorbable membranes,
meanwhile, are regarded as a safer
option for almost any regeneration
procedure nowadays because of their
higher biocompatibility.
In certain cases, the recourse to
resorbable barrier membranes with a
longer protection period may represent
an ideal compromise that significantly
increases the predictability of
the regeneration therapy, especially in
noncontaining bone defects.
Flex cortical sheet (FCS) is a barrier
membrane made from enzyme-treated,
equine-derived cortical bone
and it is therefore remodeled by the
osteoclasts. This is why its estimated
protection time is approximately
10–12 months, much longer than
common collagen membranes. It also
stabilizes the graft and prevents any
micromovements that may hinder the
bone regeneration process.
Case description
The following case illustrates implant
placement associated with GBR to
replace a missing mandibular first
molar. The surgical protocol entails
using an heterologous bone substitute
obtained via an exclusive enzymatic
process of deantigenation in conjunction
with a FCS.
At reentry surgery, to boost the local
peri-implant phenotype, a tridimensional
collagen matrix is grafted
onto the regenerated bone to thicken
the peri-implant keratinized tissue
while avoiding the need to harvest
an autogenous connective tissue
graft (CTG).
Surgical procedure
The patient presented with an edentulous
space (Fig. 1) caused by a missing
mandibular first molar, which had
been extracted six months previously.
Horizontal bone atrophy (Seibert’s
Class 1) was detected during X-ray
examination (Fig. 2).
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Once a full-thickness flap had been raised, a very horizontally atrophied bone ridge with a marked vestibular cavity was found (Fig. 3). Considering the anatomy of the bone defect, the rehabilitation schedule entailed the insertion of an osseointegrated implant associated with the regeneration of the defect through a GBR protocol. The patient granted his informed consent to the procedure.
Fig. 3
A full-thickness flap was raised to access the surgical site, and lingual and buccal flaps were released to advance tissue coronally without any tension.
The implant site was prepared with the aid of drill stops (Fig. 4) and the implant was then inserted (Fig. 5) flush to the lingual bone crest (Fig. 6). [Editor’s note: For complete information about products used, see “Surgical Notes” sidebar on below.] A large portion of implant surface was left exposed (Fig. 7). Intramarrow penetrations were performed using a piezoelectric tip to promote the flow of blood, cells and growth factors inside the graft to foster the subsequent regeneration events (Fig. 8).
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
After hydration with sterile saline (Fig. 9), flex cortical sheet was stabilized on the lingual aspect with a titanium pin and bone substitute was grafted around the implant surface (Fig. 10). FCS also was folded onto the graft and fixed with three other titanium pins on the buccal aspect (Fig. 11). The flaps were then sutured with horizontal internal mattress sutures and interrupted stitches (Fig. 12).
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Six months later, at the time of reentry surgery (Fig. 13), a periapical X-ray was taken to assess the success of bone regeneration (Fig. 14). The surgical site was accessed through a partial-thickness flap; a significant amount of new regenerated bone could be observed, without the presence of residual granules (Fig. 15). After the lingual pin was removed, a stock healing abutment was placed (Fig. 16) and a periapical X-ray was taken to check the abutment’s proper seating (Fig. 17).
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
To boost the local peri-implant phenotype, a collagen matrix (Fig. 18) was grafted on the buccal aspect (Fig. 19). Collagen matrix is a tridimensional, scaffold-shaped, 15-by-30-by-4-mm matrix suitable for soft-tissue regeneration procedures. In fact, after grafting, it acts as a biocompatible matrix, able to be repopulated by the patient’s connective tissue cells. Its appearance is a spongy patch with consistent density on both sides; dry use is recommended, without saline hydration. In contact with blood, it shows adhesive properties that promote placement and stabilization. This made it possible to avoid taking subcutaneous connective tissue from the patient’s palate, thus limiting postoperative discomfort.
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
An apically positioned flap was then performed with the aim of re-creating a band of attached gingiva of the ideal size and thickness, sutured with interrupted stitches and a crossed horizontal mattress suture (Fig. 20). No complications were observed during or following either surgical procedure (Fig. 21).
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
After an adequate healing and conditioning of soft tissues (Fig. 22), the subsequent porcelain-fused-to-metal definitive prosthetic crown was delivered (Fig. 23).
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
At the 24-month follow-up, a periapical X-ray was taken to evaluate the stability of peri-implant bone level (Fig. 24).
Fig. 24
Implant: Resista 3.8-by-11.5 mm. W2-IK3811. Lot I-212441.
Bone graft: Bioteck Cancellous cortical mix gel, OSP OX-22 0.5 ml. Lot 213708.
Membrane: Flex Cortica Sheet OX Flex, OSP-OX09. Lot 213583.
Tridimensional collagen matrix: Xenomatrix, BCG-XC10. Lot 213562E.
Anesthesia: 40 mg/mL of articaine hydrochloride with epinephrine (1:100,000).
Sutures: 5-0 PTFE (first surgery) and 5-0 polyester (second surgery).
Prophylaxis: 2 g amoxicillin/clavulanic acid one hour before surgery, then every 12 hours for six days. Patient was instructed to rinse with 0.2% of chlorhexidine, to be continued for two weeks after surgery. In addition, 220 mg of naproxen sodium was administered one hour before surgery, then the patient was instructed to take the same amount twice a day for three days
Results
The clinical pictures and periapical X-ray taken at the 24-month follow-up show excellent stability of peri-implant bone level, along with healthy peri-implant soft tissue.
Peri-implant probing at the follow-up indicated the implant can be considered healthy.
The patient was admitted into a supportive periodontal therapy program, which he’s still participating in.
Conclusions
The recourse to resorbable FCS with a
longer protection period may represent
the ideal compromise between
nonresorbable e-PTFE and collagen
membranes, especially in noncontaining
bone defects. Such findings
were confirmed by a direct clinical
evaluation at reentry surgery, which
revealed that the bone defect had been
repaired and the aspect was that of
the newly formed mature bone of the
patient without the presence of bone
granules. Moreover, the use of collagen
matrix as an alternative to autologous
CTG reduced the patient’s discomfort
and surgical time length, with a better
cost-effectiveness ratio.
These results call for confirmation
using well-designed controlled
prospective studies involving a larger
patient population.
Learn more about guided tissue regeneration and earn 1.25 CE credits
The author of this article, Dr. Giacomo Tarquini, has also created a one-hour online CE course about the principles and surgical protocols of guided tissue regeneration. To watch the course and take the quiz for a chance to earn 1.25 CE credits, click here.
Dr. Giacomo Tarquini graduated with honors in dentistry and dental prosthetics from the Sapienza University of Rome in 1994, and has been practicing dentistry for about 25 years. Today he practices in Rome with particular interest in the disciplines of periodontology and implantology. He is also a consultant, professor, tutor and lecturer for a variety of dental specialties. Along with various articles, Tarquini is the author of the textbook "Techniques of Periodontal Surgery: From Diagnosis to Therapy."