Evaluation of Clinical Success of the 3D-Printed Custom-Made Subperiosteal Implants.

OBJECTIVE: The authors aim to share their experiences in subperiosteal implant applications in atrophic jaws, which have been practiced in their clinic for about 2 years, and evaluate the complications and clinical success of the implants. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Clinical and radiologic data of 32 patients who underwent subperiosteal implantation for advanced alveolar bone loss were evaluated, but 1 patient was excluded as they smoked. Of the 31 patients included in the study, 27 were operated with the diagnosis of total tooth loss, 3 for maxillectomy and 1 for partial tooth loss. A total of 60 subperiosteal implants were placed in them. The mean follow-up period was 15 months. RESULTS: During the operation, implant-bone adaptation problems were encountered in 11 patients, implant skeletal fracture in 1 patient, and loss of primary stabilization during mini-screw fixation in 2. Although there were no complications in the early postoperative period, biological and prosthetic complications occurred in the late postoperative period. Soft tissue retraction at various levels in 12 patients (only keratinized tissue retraction in 6 and mucosal retraction exceeding keratinized tissue in 6), soft tissue infection in 5 and oroantral fistula development in 1, mini-screw loosening in 3 were the biological complications that occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Various complications may occur during or after the application of custom-made subperiosteal implants. However, these are manageable and can be reapplied in case of a possible implant loss, making it an important alternative, especially in atrophic jaws where endosseous dental implants cannot be applied.

Radiological examination of the relationship between the pterygomaxillary junction and fracture pattern.

BACKGROUND: Le Fort 1 (LF1) osteotomies are widely used to correct midface deformities. To move the maxilla freely, the ptery-gomaxillary junction (PMJ) must be separated. When performing this osteotomy, the pterygoid plate must remain intact. The objective of this study was to evaluate relationship between the anatomical features of the PMJ and fracture patterns in LF1 osteotomy. METHODS: Pre-operative and post-operative cone-beam computed tomography images of 41 patients (82 samples) who have undergone LF1 osteotomy surgery were radiologically evaluated. Morphologic measurements of the pterygomaxillary fissure area and pterygoid plate were carried out. Moreover, pterygomaxillary separation was divided into the clean-cut, maxillary sinus, and pterygoid plate fracture types. RESULTS: Statistically significant difference was observed between clean-type fracture and pterygoid plate fracture groups' thickness of the pterygoid process and thickness of the pterygomaxillary region. CONCLUSION: Anatomical variations make it difficult to separate the PMJ properly. Low thickness of PMJ increases the risk of unwanted fractures; however, according to our experience, the use of an osteotome with an incorrect angle, excessive force, and inexperienced surgeons can also cause undesirable pterygoid plate fractures.

Correction of malocclusion and oral rehabilitation in a case of amelogenesis imperfecta by insertion of dental implants followed by Le Fort I distraction osteogenesis of the edentulous atrophic maxilla.

BACKGROUND: Amelogenesis imperfecta refers a group of hereditary diseases affecting the teeth and can present a variety of clinical forms and appearances, compromising esthetic appearance. Amelogenesis imperfecta variably reduces oral health quality and can result in severe psychological problems. CASE PRESENTATION: We present the management of an amelogenesis imperfecta Angle class III malocclusion case with speech, esthetics and functional problems. This is an example of the rarely presented delayed eruption with multiple morphologic dental alterations and edentulous maxilla.There are only a few available reports in which this method is used method to correct sagittal discrepancies in edentulous patients.Our treatment plan consisted of a preoperative diagnostic and prosthodontics phase (including preparation of guiding prosthesis), followed by a surgical phase of Le Fort I osteotomy, distraction osteogenesis to correct the malocclusion, implant insertion and a follow up final restorative phase. CONCLUSIONS: Our treatment strategy attempts to serve patient needs, achieving function and esthetics while also minimizing the risk of reconstruction failure. Treatment not only restored function and esthetics, but also showed a positive psychological impact and thereby improved perceived quality of life.