Visor Osteotomy of the Anterior Mandible

Current techniques for three-dimensional correction of the chin in patients with mandibular retrusion may increase mentolabial fold depth, but have limited effect on the lips. The authors present a single surgical technique to support the mentolabial fold and improve labial competence. The visor osteotomy is performed from canine to canine. The bone fragment pedicled to the lingual periosteum is coronally mobilized and fixed in the new position. Preserved vascularization is supposed to minimize the amount of bone resorbed. Visor osteotomy of the anterior mandible may improve the existing treatments for micrognathia by creating an aesthetic mentolabial fold and a competent lip seal

Unconventional implants for distal cantilever fixed full-arch prostheses: a long-term evaluation of four cases

Excessive cantilever lengths of fixed implant-supported prostheses may have functional and biomechanical disadvantages. This study reports the clinical outcomes of unconventional implants placed for distal support of a fixed implant-supported prostheses. Seven extraoral implants with intraosseous lengths of 2.5 to 4.0 mm were placed in four patients. Distal cantilevers had a mean length of 29.8 mm (range, 18.6 to 39.3 mm). No bone loss or other adverse events were found. The prosthetic plan was maintained in all patients. Within the limits of the employed research design, this concept seems to be a successful option for fixed complete implant-supported prosthesis treatment

The use of extraoral implants for distal-extension removable dentures: a clinical evaluation up to 8 years

PURPOSE: This retrospective study reports the clinical outcome following placement of extraoral implants in severely resorbed posterior ridges to support distal-extension removable dentures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Consecutively treated patients with partially or completely edentulous ridges, with available bone height in the posterior region of 6 mm or less, were included in the study. Implants originally intended for extraoral use (Straumann) were placed in second molar regions and allowed to heal for 4 to 6 months before abutment connection. At recall appointments, the peri-implant hard and soft tissues were evaluated. Complications with implant components, as well as mechanical and structural failures of the prostheses, were recorded. Two-year survival rates were calculated and life table analyses undertaken. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (19 women and 10 men; average age 61.2 years, range, 44 to 75 years) were included in the study. Forty-seven extraoral implants in 26 patients were placed in the second molar site of the mandible. Two extraoral implants in 2 patients failed during the osseointegration phase, yielding an 8-year cumulative success rate of 91.8%. The mean distance from the extraoral implants to the most distal tooth/implant was 28.1 mm (range, 16.7 to 39.2 mm). Twenty-three extraoral implants were restored with magnets, 18 with ball anchors, and 4 with conical cylinders. Replacement of abutments and retention elements was necessary in 2 patients. Four abutments in 2 patients were disconnected from the restorations. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the employed research design, extraoral implants may be used successfully to provide support for distal-extension removable dentures in severely resorbed posterior alveolar ridges

Mandibula wing osteotomy for correction of the mandibular plane: A case report

We report a new technique for vertical enlargement of the inferior border of the mandible

Implant-supported distal extensions in severely resorbed posterior alveolar ridges

The application of implant-borne rehabilitations in residual alveolar ridges may be restricted by various anatomic conditions, as available bone height and characteristics. Here we report the clinical outcome of implants placed in severely resorbed posterior ridges, in addition to various implant-supported treatment modalities. Extra Oral implants (Straumann, Basel, Switzerland) with the intraosseous length of 2.5–5mm were installed in the posterior alveolar ridges. Following the healing period of 4–6 months, implants were exposed and included in the distal extensions of fixed and removable prosthesis. At recall appointments were collected surgical, clinical and radiological variables, including the evidence of adverse effects. An 8-years life table analysis was calculated. The treatment protocol was applied in thirty-five patients, presenting 31 removable and 4 fixed complete implant-supported dentures. A total of 61 Extra Oral implants were placed posterior to the distal implants, at the mean distance of 29.8mm (range 15.6–62.7mm). Three implants failed during the osteointegration phase, yielding an 8-year cumulative success rate of 92.24%. Following the osteointegration period, no major bone loss or other adverse events were found. The clinical results indicated that the Extra Oral implants may be successfully used in addition to the other, longer implants. Thus, a relatively long extension in the posterior region may be employed. With careful preoperative planning, this technique offers a simple and beneficial complementary treatment option for removable and fixed complete dentures