Successful outcome of surgical reintervention for implant placement in borderline aesthetic area related to agenesis: a case report
Keywords:Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis; Anodontia; Dental prosthesis implant-supported.
The aim of this study is to illustrate and discuss the fundamentals of a well-succeeded and minimally invasive technique of surgical reintervention for installing implant in the reduced area of the alveolus, affected by agenesis, and traumatized by an unsuccessful intervention. Materials and methods: A 27-year-old patient sought dental care and her main cause was the great dissatisfaction with the aesthetic sequelae in the region of the right upper lateral incisor, in addition to the uncertainty regarding the predictability of a new unitary implant. Imaging exams showed trauma in the middle and apical region of the canine root surface. The dimensions of the edentulous area varied between 4.6 and 5.52 mm. A small diameter implant (BLT 2.9mm SC, Loxim SLActive® 12 mm, TiZr - Straumann Dental Implant System) was planned and installed, in addition to a subepithelial connective graft. Results: The results achieved allowed to restore the desired function and aesthetics, with excellence, low morbidity, in addition to a predictability favored by the benefits related to small diameter implants. Conclusions: The concept of minimally invasive dentistry is becoming an effective surgical approach and, although these implants present a higher risk for fracture than do large-diameter implants, implant fractures are rarely observed.
Allum, S. R., Tomlinson, R. A., & Joshi, R. (2008). The impact of loads on standard diameter, small diameter and mini implants: a comparative laboratory study. Clinical oral implants research, 19(6), 553–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01395.x
Aspinwall-Rezende, P. O., França, E. C., Lombardi, M. A., Drummond, A. F., Pretti, H., Martins, A. V., & Albuquerque, R. C. (2018). Orthodontic and restorative treatment of avulsed upper central incisors. Journal of clinical orthodontics: JCO, 52(10), 563–570.
Busenlechner, D., Fürhauser, R., Haas, R., Watzek, G., Mailath, G., & Pommer, B. (2014). Long-term implant success at the Academy for Oral Implantology: 8-year follow-up and risk factor analysis. Journal of periodontal & implant science, 44(3), 102–108. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2014.44.3.102
Cardaropoli, G., Wennström, J. L., & Lekholm, U. (2003). Peri-implant bone alterations in relation to inter-unit distances. A 3-year retrospective study. Clinical oral implants research, 14(4), 430–436. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00895.x
Duan, Y., & Griggs, J. A. (2018). Effect of loading frequency on cyclic fatigue lifetime of a standard-diameter implant with an internal abutment connection. Dental materials, 34(12), 1711–1716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.09.001
Duan, Y., Gonzalez, J. A., Kulkarni, P. A., Nagy, W. W., & Griggs, J. A. (2018). Fatigue lifetime prediction of a reduced-diameter dental implant system: Numerical and experimental study. Dental materials, 34(9), 1299–1309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.06.002
Esposito, M., Ekestubbe, A., & Gröndahl, K. (1993). Radiological evaluation of marginal bone loss at tooth surfaces facing single Brånemark implants. Clinical oral implants research, 4(3), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1993.040306.x
Froum, S., Natour, M., Cho, S.-C., Yu, P., & Leung, M. (2020). Expanded Clinical Applications of Narrow-Diameter Implants for Permanent Use. The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, 40(4), 529–537. doi:10.11607/prd.4565
Galindo-Moreno, P., Padial-Molina, M., Nilsson, P., King, P., Worsaae, N., Schramm, A., & Maiorana, C. (2017). The influence of the distance between narrow implants and the adjacent teeth on marginal bone levels. Clinical oral implants research, 28(6), 704–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12867
Gross, M., & Laufer, B. Z. (1997). Splinting osseointegrated implants and natural teeth in rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients. Part I: laboratory and clinical studies. Journal of oral rehabilitation, 24(11), 863–870. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1997.00582.x
Grunder, U., Gracis, S., & Capelli, M. (2005). Influence of the 3-D bone-to-implant relationship on esthetics. The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry, 25(2), 113–119.
Hof, M., Pommer, B., Strbac, G. D., Sütö, D., Watzek, G., & Zechner, W. (2013). Esthetic evaluation of single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla following autologous bone augmentation. Clinical oral implants research, 24 Suppl A100, 88–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02381.x
Jung, R. E., Zembic, A., Pjetursson, B. E., Zwahlen, M., & Thoma, D. S. (2012). Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clinical oral implants research, 23 Suppl 6, 2–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02547.x
Lazzara, R. J., & Porter, S. S. (2006). Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry, 26(1), 9–17.
Lee, D. W., Kim, N. H., Lee, Y., Oh, Y. A., Lee, J. H., & You, H. K. (2019). Implant fracture failure rate and potential associated risk indicators: An up to 12-year retrospective study of implants in 5,124 patients. Clinical oral implants research, 30(3), 206–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13407
Maeda, Y., Miura, J., Taki, I., & Sogo, M. (2007). Biomechanical analysis on platform switching: is there any biomechanical rationale?. Clinical oral implants research, 18(5), 581–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01398.x
Maeda, Y., Satoh, T., & Sogo, M. (2006). In vitro differences of stress concentrations for internal and external hex implant-abutment connections: a short communication. Journal of oral rehabilitation, 33(1), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01545.x
Magnússon T. E. (1977). Prevalence of hypodontia and malformations of permanent teeth in Iceland. Community dentistry and oral epidemiology, 5(4), 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1977.tb01635.x
Martin, W., Lewis, E., & Nicol, A. (2009). Local risk factors for implant therapy. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, 24 Suppl, 28–38.
Pereira, A. S., Shitsuka, D. M., Parreira, F. J., & Shitsuka, R. (2018). Metodologia da pesquisa científica. UFSM.
Pommer, B., Busenlechner, D., Fürhauser, R., Watzek, G., Mailath-Pokorny, G., & Haas, R. (2016). Trends in techniques to avoid bone augmentation surgery: Application of short implants, narrow-diameter implants and guided surgery. Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery, 44(10), 1630–1634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2016.08.012
Sohrabi, K., Mushantat, A., Esfandiari, S., & Feine, J. (2012). How successful are small-diameter implants? A literature review. Clinical oral implants research, 23(5), 515–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02410.x
Trbakovic, A., Bongenhielm, U., & Thor, A. (2018). A clinical and radiological long-term follow-up study of narrow diameter implants in the aesthetic area. Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 20(4), 598–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12627
Yaltirik, M., Gökçen-Röhlig, B., Ozer, S., & Evlioglu, G. (2011). Clinical evaluation of small diameter straumann implants in partially edentulous patients: a 5-year retrospective study. Journal of dentistry (Tehran, Iran), 8(2), 75–80.
Zweers, J., van Doornik, A., Hogendorf, E. A., Quirynen, M., & Van der Weijden, G. A. (2015). Clinical and radiographic evaluation of narrow- vs. regular-diameter dental implants: a 3-year follow-up. A retrospective study. Clinical oral implants research, 26(2), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12309
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2022 Adriana Vieira Martins; Rodrigo de Castro Albuquerque; Lucas Moreira Maia; Hans Hatner Araujo Oliveira; Rodrigo Keigo Nakagawa; Luis Fernando dos Santos Alves Morgan; Nelson Renato França Alves Silva ; Rodrigo Richard da Silveira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.