Volume 47, Issue 10 pp. 1237-1247
ORIGINAL ARTICLE IMPLANT DENTISTRY

Feasibility and needs for simultaneous or staged bone augmentation to place prosthetically guided dental implants after extraction or exfoliation of first molars due to severe periodontitis

Melissa Rachel Fok

Melissa Rachel Fok

Division of Periodontology and Implant dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Search for more papers by this author
George Pelekos

George Pelekos

Division of Periodontology and Implant dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Search for more papers by this author
Maurizio S. Tonetti

Corresponding Author

Maurizio S. Tonetti

Division of Periodontology and Implant dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

European Research Group on Periodontology (ERGOPerio), Genova, Italy

Department of Oral and Maxillo-facial Implantology, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, National Clinical Research Centre for Stomatology, Shanghai Ninth People Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

Correspondence

Maurizio Tonetti, Division of Periodontology and Implant Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong. 3/F, Prince Philip Dental Hospital, 34 Hospital Road, Sai Ying Pun, Hong Kong, China.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 11 July 2020
Citations: 11

Funding information

This study was supported by the University of Hong Kong Periodontal Research Fund. Melissa Fok is the recipient of a Hong Kong postgraduate research fellowship.

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to retrospectively assess bone volumes, healed ridge topography and possibility to plan prosthetically guided implants (PGI) at least 6 months after extraction or exfoliation of first molars as a consequence of terminal periodontitis (EEFMP).

Materials and Methods

45 subjects with stage III-IV periodontitis providing 74 extraction sites (maxillary = 51 and mandibular = 23) were included. The degree of residual periodontal support on each root was assessed by combining periodontal and radiographic data. Digital planning of PGI with 4.8/4.1 mm diameter, 8 mm long, root-form dental implant and need for bone augmentation (BA) were performed using CBCT with a radiographic stent. Possibility of standard implant placement (STANDARD) and need for simultaneous or staged BA were assessed.

Results

Planning PGI placement was possible in all cases. For a 4.8 mm diameter implant, STANDARD was possible in 37.8% of the sites, 33.8% required BA at the time of implant placement, and 28.4% required staged BA before PGI. The use of 4.1 mm rather than 4.8 mm diameter implant allowed STANDARD in an additional 8.1% of cases that originally required simultaneous BA/osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE). The level of periodontal bone loss did not predict the complexity of implant placement, but significant differences were observed comparing maxillary with mandibular sites.

Conclusion

PGI planning at sites with first molar loss due to terminal periodontitis is possible but poses great challenge to rehabilitation, often requiring advanced augmentation procedures and sinus augmentation.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.