Daniel R. Cullum

Marginal Bone Stability Using 3 Different Flap Approaches for Alveolar Split Expansion for Dental Implants—A 1-Year Clinical Study

PURPOSE Width augmentation for the alveolar process using alveolar split procedures has not been studied in a comparative study with regard to marginal bone stability. Most research in this regard has used implant osseointegration as an endpoint for the success of the bone grafting procedure. The purpose of the present clinical trial was to retrospectively evaluate the stability of the buccal crestal bone around dental implants placed into alveolar split graft sites using 3 different approaches: a minimal flap, a partial-thickness flap, and a full mucoperiosteal flap. Implants were placed simultaneously or delayed to alveolar split grafting. The aim of the present study was to do a comparative analysis of these 3 techniques by clinical detection for the presence or absence of marginal bone using a periodontal probe 1 year after implant restoration. The working hypothesis was that detachment or disturbance of the blood supply of the buccal plate would be influenced by the flap procedure used and would therefore affect the late marginal bone stability around the implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 40 consecutive patients were treated in 2 different practice locations (20 at each office) with alveolar split procedures and simultaneous implant placement, using 3 different flap approaches and were seen again after 1 year at the 2 private office locations. The patients were in general good health, without active periodontal disease. All patients were nonsmokers. Patients with diabetes mellitus were excluded from the study. The aim of the present study was to establish the stability of the mobilized buccal bone plate, which could only be observed indirectly. The method used to detect the presence or absence of buccal marginal bone was a blunt periodontal probe used in the sulcus on the facial surface of the restored implant or a sharp explorer used transgingivally to detect marginal bone presence. However, the bone thickness could not be established using either of these methods. This was done in both practice locations by the surgeon who had performed the procedure (in a few cases, open flap procedures were done up to 1 year after grafting, which permitted direct observation of the original treatment site). The 3 different flap approaches studied were full-thickness flap reflection, partial-thickness flap reflection, and minimal flap reflection of the osteoperiosteal flap approach to crestally split and then widen the alveolus. RESULTS A total of 40 consecutive patients treated with 65 alveolar split expansion procedures done in 2 practice locations during a 2-year period were statistically analyzed retrospectively for buccal bone augmentation presence and implant restorability after 1 year of healing. Facial bone loss of 2 mm or more was seen in 11 sites, 10 of which were full flap reflections and 1 an osteoperiosteal flap site. Implant osseointegration was 92.5% for the osteoperiosteal flaps, 93.3% for the partial-thickness flaps, and 94.4% for the full-thickness flaps. CONCLUSIONS The 3 flap approaches to alveolar widening by crest splitting with implant placement had a sustained increased alveolar width after 1 year. However, most full flap alveolar split cases had facial bone loss and gingival recession. The osteoperiosteal flaps (book flap) and partial-thickness flaps showed stable buccal bone patterns. The results of the present clinical study of relatively early osseous remodeling suggest that full mucoperiosteal flaps should not be reflected when an alveolar split is done. However, to further elucidate the marginal bone vitality, a longer study period must be undertaken to more fully validate the alveolar split procedure and verify the best flap approach.

Minimally Invasive Dental Implant Surgery

minimally invasive dental implant surgery buch minimally invasive roseville perio minimally invasive implant surgery joionline minimally invasive alveolar ridge preservation flapless guided implant uncovering (fgiu): minimally minimally invasive implant osseo dental minimally invasive dental implant surgeries article guidelines for flapless surgery minimally invasive implant surgery and immediate loading read online minimally invasive dental implant surgery lasers in minimally invasive periodontal and peri?implant minimally invasive implantology: flapless surgery file download minimally invasive dental implant surgery minimally invasive dental implant surgery grepbook mimi® (minimally invasive method of implantation) with minimally invasive dental implant surgery: making the most complications of guided surgery and immediate loading in case letter minimally invasive surgical approaches for minimally invasive roseville perio minimally invasive flapless implant placement: follow-up minimally invasive dental implant surgery sunbond a minimally invasive second-stage procedure for single “crestal window sinus lift,” minimally invasive c r flapless dental implant surgery for patients on oral minimally invasive implant therapy in geriatric patients minimally invasive dental implant surgery pdf online extention of alveolar ridge without raising the the navigator system model-based surgery manual minimally invasive dental implant surgery hdck implantology & surgery dental bone surgery minimally invasive total knee replacement orthoassociates benefits of the flapless mimi® minimally invasive dental dr. hadar better/specialist, oral and maxillofacial simplant® guided surgery dentsply implants, dental minimally invasive sinus & ridge augmentation using minimally invasive extraction and immediate implant patients preferences towards minimally invasive treatment pain medications update for dentists treating chronic pain flapless implant surgery: a review of the literature and 3 minimally-invasive implant dentistry: less is more mini dental implants prosites, inc. flapless approach to maxillary sinus augmentation using surgical manual dentsply implants, dental products