Inferior alveolar nerve lateralization and transposition for dental implant placement. Part I: a systematic review of surgical techniques

Implant placement with inferior alveolar nerve repositioning in the posterior mandible

This case report presents inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) repositioning as a viable approach for implant placement in the mandibular molar region, where challenges of severe alveolar bone width and height deficiencies can exist. Two patients requiring implant placement in the right mandibular molar region underwent nerve transposition and lateralization. In both cases, inadequate alveolar bone height above the IAN precluded the use of short implants. The first patient exhibited an overall low alveolar ridge from the anterior to posterior regions, with a complex relationship with adjacent implant bone level and the mental nerve, complicating vertical augmentation. In the second case, although vertical bone resorption was not severe, the high positioning of the IAN within the alveolar bone due to orthognathic surgery raised concerns regarding adequate height of the implant prosthesis. Therefore, instead of onlay bone grafting, nerve transposition and lateralization were employed for implant placement. In both cases, the follow-up results demonstrated successful osseointegration of all implants and complete recovery of postoperative numbness in the lower lip and mentum area. IAN repositioning is a valuable surgical technique that allows implant placement in severely compromised posterior mandibular regions, promoting patient comfort and successful implant placement without permanent IAN damage.

One-stage versus two-stage technique using two splinted extra-short implants: A multicentric split-mouth study with a one-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes of extra-short implants (≤6.5 mm) inserted with one-stage versus two-stage technique in adjacent sites of the upper or lower jaw.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this split-mouth multicenter study, implants were randomly divided into two groups according to the healing phase: two-stage and one-stage technique. Primary outcome measures were implant survival, implant success, and prosthodontic complications. Secondary outcome measurements were: implant stability quotient (ISQ) collected at surgery time (T0), and after 3 (T3) and 12 (T12) months, marginal bone level (MBL) evaluated at T0, T3, T6, and T12, marginal bone loss evaluated at T6 and T12, plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BoP) evaluated at T3, T6, and T12. Significances of differences between groups were tested by linear mixed model with random intercept.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients (8 males and 11 females) were included. A total of 38 implants were inserted. At T12 implant cumulative survival and implant success rate were 100% in both groups. No statistically significant differences were recorded for any of the analyzed parameters between the two groups at any time point. ISQ values were similar at T0 (two-stage: mean 67.53 ± SD 19.47; one-stage: mean 66.53 ± 19.07 p = 0.8738) and increased in both groups at the 12-month follow-up appointment (two-stage: 81.1 ± 7.04; one-stage: 81.39 ± 0.9266). MBL values were similar in the two groups at any time point. At T12 marginal bone loss was 0.46 ± 0.41 (two-stage) and 0.45 ± 0.38 (one-stage) mm (p = 0.9417), while mean PD was 2.7 ± 0.85 (two-stage) and 2.69 ± 0.89 (one-stage) mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of the present short-term report, extra-short implants demonstrated optimal clinical outcomes using the one-stage technique, without statistically significant differences compared with the traditional two-stage approach.

Successful Management of a Gigantic Ameloblastic Fibroma: A 12-Year Follow-up

An ameloblastic fibroma (AF) is a benign mixed odontogenic tumor that mainly affects patients in the first and second decades of life. It is usually associated with an impacted tooth, commonly the first or second permanent molar. We present a case of an 11-year-old male patient diagnosed with AF, showing well-defined borders almost completely affecting the body and inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) branch on the right side of the mandible and displacing teeth 46 and 47 associated with the lesion. The treatment included conservative surgery, with oral rehabilitation, including IAN lateralization, implant placement without sensorial alteration, and posterior rehabilitation, performed after 10 years of follow-up. Rehabilitation with implants is a safe and effective procedure for the prosthetic rehabilitation of the posterior atrophic mandible. However, sensorial alteration of the IAN occurs in 100% of cases and tends to regress with time or may be permanent in few cases.

Prosthetic Rehabilitation of the Partially Edentulous Atrophic Posterior Mandible with Short Implants (≤ 8 mm) Compared with the Sandwich Osteotomy and Delayed Placement of Standard Length Implants (> 8 mm): a Systematic Review

Objectives

Test the hypothesis of no difference in prosthetic rehabilitation of the partially edentulous atrophic posterior mandible with short implants (≤ 8 mm) compared with the sandwich osteotomy and delayed placement of standard lengths implants (> 8 mm).

Material and Methods

A MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane library search in combination with a hand-search was conducted by including studies published in English. No year of publication restriction was applied.

Results

Six randomized controlled trials characterized by low or moderate risk of bias fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There were no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) in the survival rate of suprastructures and implants between the two treatment modalities after one year. Sandwich osteotomy and delayed implant placement demonstrated statistically significant higher long-term peri-implant marginal bone loss as well as biological and technical complications compared with short implants (P < 0.0001). Moreover, patients significantly favoured prosthetic rehabilitation with short implants (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Short implants and the sandwich osteotomy with delayed placement of standard length implants appear to result in predictable outcomes in terms of high survival rate of suprastructures and implants after prosthetic rehabilitation of the partially edentulous atrophic posterior mandible. However, further long-term randomized controlled trials assessing donor site morbidity, an economic perspective, professional and patient-related outcome measures with the two treatment modalities are needed before definite conclusions can be provided about the beneficial use of short implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of the partially edentulous atrophic posterior mandible compared with the sandwich osteotomy and delayed placement of standard length implants.

Short Dental Implants (≤7mm) Versus Longer Implants in Augmented Bone Area: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Aim:

The aim of this systematic review was to compare the survival rate and the marginal bone loss between short implants (≤7 mm) placed in the atrophic area and longer implants placed in the augmented bone area of posterior regions of maxillaries.

Methods:

Electronic search using three databases was performed up to May 2017 to identify Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) assessing short implants survival with a minimal follow-up of 12 months post-loading. For the meta-analysis, a Risk Difference (RD) with the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was used to pool the results of implant failure rate for each treatment group. For the marginal bone changes, Mean Differences (MD) with 95% CI were calculated.

Results:

Seven randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, being included in qualitative and quantitative analyses. The RD between the short implant group and the control group was -0.02 (95% CI: -0.04 to 0.00), I²=0 and Chi²=3.14, indicating a favorable survival rate for short implant, but with no statistical significance (p=0.09).

Discussion:

For marginal bone loss, the mean difference was -0,13 (95%CI: -0.22 to -0.05), favoring the test group with statistical significance (p=0.002). The studies showed more heterogeneity for bone loss compared to survival rate. Short and longer implants showed similar survival rates after one year of loading, however the marginal bone loss around short implants was lower than in longer implants sites.

Conclusion:

Placement of implants ≤7 mm of length was found to be a predictable alternative for the rehabilitation of atrophic posterior regions, avoiding all the disadvantages intrinsic to bone augmentation procedures.