Remodeling of calvarial graft in increased atrophic maxillary thickness. A prospective clinical study

Treatment of peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence around implants placed in calvarial bone graft maxilla and mandible 20 years ago: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Despite tissue augmentation and management prior implantation, long-term observation can reveal a change in peri-implant phenotype with some lack of keratinized mucosa (KM). The treatment approach of peri-implant dehiscence in multiple implants is not clearly defined. This report describes the different periodontal surgical approaches undertaken to promote the gingival margin stability and to prevent the peri-implant mucosal inflammation over time.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 64-year-old woman with peri-implant tissue dehiscence regarding implants placed 20 years ago in a calvarial bone grafted maxilla and mandible was treated. Right maxillary and mandible peri-implants soft tissue were treated with a large apically positioned partial-thickness flap (APPTF) combined to a free gingival graft (FGG) simultaneously. For the left maxillary, where a frenum was in tension associated with infection and pockets, a large APPTF followed by a FGG 4 months later were performed. The KM width (KMW) increased in three operated sites with a gain average of 2.2 mm. The plaque control record decreased from 68% to 21%. All the probing depths were lower than 3 mm. Bleeding on probing was significantly reduced. The gingival index (GI) went from 1.5 to 0.25.

CONCLUSION

In a multiple implants soft tissue dehiscence case, an APPTF associate to a FGG, delayed or not, seems to be a safety primary approach to improve the KMW and to stabilize the peri-implants soft tissue. Further, a connective tissue graft in a bilaminar approach could be an option to enhance soft tissue thickness and esthetic outcomes.

KEY POINTS

Why is this case new information? To the best of the authors' knowledge, there are very limited studies regarding multi-implant soft tissue dehiscence treatment. Relevant guidelines are not clearly defined. Despite peri-implant hard and soft tissue augmentation, after a long-term observation (20 years of function), we can observe a change in peri-implant soft tissue phenotype (PISTP) with periodontal complication. What are the keys to successful management of this case? Removal of peri-implant infection and tissue tension (frenum) by a large apically positioned partial-thickness flap (APPTF) before soft tissue augmentation procedure. In case of very thin peri-implant soft tissue, caution is needed to preserve the blood supply from the supra-periosteal plexus. Large APPTF and sufficient amount of keratinized mucosa (KM) should be grafted to compensate for the tissue shrinkage. What are the primary limitations to success in this case? High esthetic demand. A secondary bilaminar approach with a connective tissue graft (CTG) should be necessary to improve the esthetic outcomes. Patient compliance.

Survival Rate of Zygomatic Implants for Fixed Oral Maxillary Rehabilitations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Outcomes between Zygomatic and Regular Implants

Background: Zygomatic implants have been proposed alone or in combination with premaxillary conventional implants for severe resorbed maxillary atrophy rehabilitation. The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate through a qualitative systematic review and meta-analysis the survival rate of zygomatic implants in conjunction with regular fixtures for maxillary rehabilitation. Methods: The article screening was conducted on the PubMed/Medline and EMBASE electronic databases according to the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) guidelines. The scientific papers were included for qualitative analysis and risk-of-bias evaluation. Only the papers that included rehabilitation with zygomatic implants in combination with regular implants were considered for the meta-analysis comparative evaluation of the implant survival rate. Results: The paper search screened a total of 137 papers. After the initial screening, a total of 32 articles were considered for the qualitative analysis. There was a similar implant survival rate between zygomatic and premaxilla regular implants (p = 0.02; Z: 2.26). Conclusions: Zygomatic and conventional implants showed a high long-term survival rate for fixed maxillary rehabilitations, but few included studies reported the marginal bone loss after loading. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the pattern of marginal bone loss between zygomatic and conventional implants after long-term functional loading.