ABSTRACT
FOCUSED CLINICAL QUESTION: What factors identify the optimal bone augmentation techniques for managing slight, moderate, and severe horizontal alveolar ridge deficiency (ARD) at dental implant sites? SUMMARY: Horizontal ARD is a concern at a high proportion of sites receiving dental implants, and clinicians have developed a variety of surgical procedures to address such defects. In a particular case, selection of the optimal treatment may depend predominantly on defect severity, location (anterior versus posterior), and configuration (contained versus noncontained). This report provides a framework for selecting an augmentation method when presented with a slight, moderate, or severe horizontal ARD at a site requiring dental implant placement. CONCLUSION: Multiple treatment options are available for planned implant sites exhibiting horizontal ARD; severe posterior and slight anterior defects intuitively call for different approaches. Although rigid guidelines for selecting the optimal augmentation method do not exist, some techniques are poorly suited for esthetically demanding sites. A framework considering defect severity, location, and configuration may help guide clinical decisions on this topic.
Subject(s)
Alveolar Bone Loss , Alveolar Ridge Augmentation , Dental Implants , Humans , Dental Implantation, Endosseous , Alveolar Ridge Augmentation/methods , Bone Transplantation/methods , Alveolar Bone Loss/surgery , Clinical ProtocolsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to illustrate the efficacy of a novel imaging analysis technology to capture horizontal and vertical dimensional changes following horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation (HRA). METHODS: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) volumes from 65 HRA sites in 57 patients were available for evaluation, employing a three-dimensional analysis software to overlay preoperative and post-augmentation CBCT volumes. Horizontal and vertical alveolar ridge dimensional (HRD/VRD) changes were recorded considering a panel of patient-, site-, and procedure-related explanatory variables. RESULTS: VRD changes ranged from -2.9 to 3.0 mm, more than half anterior sites losing alveolar ridge height. Mean HRD increase at the 3- and 5-mm levels apical to the alveolar crest amounted to 2.3±1.6 and 2.4±1.3 mm, respectively, membrane fixation and non-resorbable membrane use associated with significantly greater gains. CONCLUSIONS: To date, studies reporting dimensional changes following HRA predominantly rely on serial in situ orofacial caliper recordings omitting vertical alterations. The protocol employed in this study allows simultaneous HRD and VRD evaluations and assures baseline and post-augmentation recordings are made at the same alveolar ridge position. Compared with in situ recording, CBCT overlay analysis may achieve a more complete characterization of dimensional changes following HRA.
