ALVEOLAR RIDGE AUGMENTATION WITH TITANIUM MESH: A CLINICAL AND HISTOLOGICAL STUDY

Benda Kalman. Le régime féodal en Hongrie à la fin du XVIIIe siècle. In: Annales historiques de la Révolution française, n°196, 1969. L’abolition du régime féodal dans le monde occidental. pp. 268-275

BRANEMARK AND FRIALIT IMPLANTS FOR THE REHABILITATION OF GRAFTED MAXILLA: A 6-12-YEAR STUDY (poster)

Aim. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether there was a difference between implants with a machined- or a rough-surface placed after Le Fort 1 osteotomy and interpositional iliac bone grafts regarding survival, success rate and marginal bone loss during a 6- to 12 year observation period. Materials and Methods. Twelve patients with extremely resorbed maxillae were subjected to Le Fort 1 advancement and interpositional bone grafts. After 4-5 months 104 implants were inserted (from a minimum of 5 up to 12): 53 Br\ue5nemark machined implants and 51 Frialit 2 implants with TPS coating. Implants were surgically exposed 6-7 months later. All the patients received fixed proshesis. Clinical and radiographical examinations of the bone grafts and implants were evaluated in all cases. Results. The Frialit group was followed up for a mean period of 100\ub118.06 (range 72\u2013120) months and Branemark group for 104\ub129.06 (range 72\u2013144) months. During the whole observation period, 10.6% (11/104) of all implants were lost. Frialit implants had the highest survival and success rate (92.2% and 68.7%, respectively), than group 2 (Branemark implants) (86.8% and 66%, respectively), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.8235). The mean marginal bone loss was 2.88 mm (SD. 0.83) for the Branemark group and 2.69 mm (SD. 0.75) for the Frialit group. No significant difference was found (p=0. 059). Conclusion. The results of this study showed that Branemark and Frialit implants had comparable survival and success rate and marginal bone loss in autogenous grafted maxillary bone

A LONG-TERM RETROSPECTIVE STUDY OF TWO DIFFERENT IMPLANT SURFACE PLACED AFTER RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SEVERELY RESORBED MAXILLA USING LE FORT I OSTEOTOMY AND INTERPOSITIONAL BONE GRAFT

Purpose: In this retrospective study, the long-term survival and success rates of implants with 2 different surfaces placed in extremely atrophic maxillae augmented with Le Fort I osteotomy and interpositional bone grafts were assessed. Materials and Methods: In 12 consecutive patients (7 female, 5 male; average age, 55 years; age range, 47 to 63 years), the resorbed maxilla was reconstructed using Le Fort I osteotomy in combination with interpositional iliac bone grafts. After 5 to 6 months, machined or titanium plasma-sprayed implants were inserted. The patients were followed clinically and radiographically for 6 to 12 years (mean 102 \ub1 24.42 months) after prosthetic loading. Implant outcome in terms of survival and success using Albrektsson\u2019s criteria was analyzed. Results: In all cases, the bone-grafting procedures allowed implant placement. Of the 104 implants placed (53 machined and 51 titanium plasma-sprayed), 11 failed, resulting in an overall cumulative survival rate of 89.4%. When the success rate was calculated using the defined criteria, the cumulative success rate was 67.3%. The respective survival and success rates were 86.8% and 66.0% for the machined implants and 92.2% and 68.7% for the titanium plasma-sprayed implants. The mean marginal bone resorption was 2.91 \ub1 0.77 mm (range, 0.6 to 4.9 mm) around machined implants and 2.72 \ub1 0.84 mm (range, 0.7 to 5.3 mm) around titanium plasma-sprayed implants. No significant differences in survival, success rate, or marginal bone resorption were found between the 2 implant groups. Conclusions: Le Fort I osteotomy combined with bone grafts and delayed implant placement gave predictable long-term results. There was a distinct relationship between implant survival and the long-term success rate. The implant surface had no significant effect on the survival, success rate, or marginal bone resorption. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:911\u2013918 Key words: alveolar bone augmentation, atrophic maxilla, autogenous bone graft, dental implants, follow-up study, Le Fort I osteotom

ALVEOLAR DISTRACTION OSTEOGENESIS FOR BONE AUGMENTATION OF SEVERELY ATROPHIC RIDGES IN 10 CONSECUTIVE CASES: A HISTOLOGIC AND HISTOMORPHOMETRIC STUDY

Background: This study analyzed bone healing in surgically osteodistracted maxillary and mandibular ridges histologically and histomorphometrically at two different times to determine the best time to insert dental implants. Methods: Ten consecutive patients with severe maxillary (two patients) or mandibular (eight patients) atrophy underwent surgical osteodistraction with an extraosseous distractor. Seven days after the surgery, the distractor was activated at a rate of 1 mm/day until achieving the planned bone lengthening. The distractor was removed after a consolidation period of 70 days. Bone biopsies were obtained at implant insertion: 70 days after the end of distraction on the day of distractor removal in six patients (group A) or 180 days afterwards in four patients (group B). The biopsies were evaluated histologically and histomorphometrically to measure the osteocyte lacunar area (OLA). Results: The histologic and histomorphometrical analysis of the distracted bone 70 days after the end of distraction showed well-organized lamellar bone. At 180 days, the bone was more compact and mature; the mineralization of the matrix was greater; and an increased, but small, amount of marrow space was evident (35% versus 45%). The mean OLA was 80.11 ± 27.59 μm2 in group A and 70.4 ± 33.58 μm2 in group B. The difference between the two biopsy groups was not significant (P = 0.315). Conclusion: The results of this study showed that there was definitely similar bone formation in the distracted area for both healing periods, and placing implants clinically worked in both of these time periods in the limited number of cases observed