Dental implants for the patient with poor bone quantity – Jonathan Fleet
Featured Products Promotional FeaturesPosted by: Dental Design 2nd March 2018
Over the past few decades, the use of dental implants has become increasingly common and implantology is now a well-established method for restoring missing teeth.[1] Furthermore, research evidence indicates that dental implants are an effective treatment as they have long-term success and survival rates.[2],[3]
However, their success and survival can be affected by several factors, such as periodontal disease, age, and a history of smoking.[4] One particular issue affecting their long-term success is the presence of sufficient bone volume in the jaw.[5] Poor bone quality and quantity are key risk factors for implant failure. [6],[7]
The volume and quality of bone may be reduced in some patients for a number of reasons, such as the use of oral bisphosphonates, trauma and age. Bisphosphonates can lead to osteonecrosis of the jaw, patients who have lost teeth due to trauma may subsequently lose bone[8] and increasing age can lead to greater bone porosity and a decrease in density.[9],[10]
Guided bone regeneration
While it may appear that dental implants cannot be considered for patients with poor bone quantity or quality, it is still possible to use them when the bone morphology is not ideal. This is achievable as bone augmentation procedures can be performed either before or during implant placement.[11] More specifically, guided bone regeneration (GBR) can be done, which is a surgical technique in which the affected area can be regenerated by filling the bone defect with some form of bone graft or substitute and using a barrier membrane to protect the graft. The membrane maintains the space for bone regeneration and prevents the ingrowth of connective tissue.[12]
Evidence shows that GBR is a predictable technique that allows for successful implant placement in patients with poor bone volume. One systematic review of studies that involved patients who required GBR prior to implant placement found implant success rates higher than 90%.[13]
What options are available?
Various regenerative products are available that are both safe and reliable for GBR. For example, Nobel Biocare has developed a range of regenerative products, which includes creos xenogain and creos xenoprotect. Creos xenogain is a biocompatible deproteinized bovine bone mineral matrix, which is easy to handle and has a slow resorption rate. A study that followed-up several patients in whom bovine bone material was used has shown that it leads to good healing responses and reliable results.[14]
Creos xenoprotect is a collagen membrane that is resorbable. It is composed of a network of highly purified porcine collagen and elastin fibers, which provide the membrane with high mechanical strength. It has outstanding handling properties as it does not become sticky when hydrated and it is easy to reposition and unfold. A study that examined the performance of creos xenoprotect in 24 patients found that it facilitates bone gain to support implant placement.[15]
The development of high-quality regenerative products that can be used when performing GBR means that dental implants can be provided for patients who have poor bone quality or quantity.
For more information, contact Nobel Biocare on 0208 756 3300, or visit www.nobelbiocare.com
[1] Lekholm U, Gunne J, Henry P, Higuchi K, Linden U, Bergsrom C, van Steenberghe D. Survival of the Bränemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: a 10-year prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofaci Implants 1999;14:639-45.
[2] Al-Sabbagh M, Thomas MV, Bhavsar I, De Leeuw R. Effect of bisphosphonate and age on implant failure as determined by patient-reported outcomes. J Oral Implant 2015;XLI:e287-e91.
[3] Lekholm U, Gunne J, Henry P, Higuchi K, Linden U, Bergsrom C, van Steenberghe D. Survival of the Bränemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: a 10-year prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofaci Implants 1999;14:639-45.
[4] Al-Sabbagh M, Thomas MV, Bhavsar I, De Leeuw R. Effect of bisphosphonate and age on implant failure as determined by patient-reported outcomes. J Oral Implant 2015;XLI:e287-e91.
[5] Baj A, Trapella G, Lauritano D, Candotto V, Mancini GE, Gianni AB. An overview on bone reconstruction of atrophic maxilla: success parameters and critical issues. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 2016;30:209-15.
[6] Johns RB, Jemt T, Heath MR, Hutton JE, McKenna S, McNamara DC, van Steenberghe D, Taylor R, Watson RM, Hermann I. A multicenter study of overdentures supported by Bränemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:513-22.
[7] Chrcanovic B, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Bone quality and quantity and dental implant failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Prosthodont 2017;30:219-37.
[8] Alani A, Djemal S, Bishop K, Renton T. Guidelines for selecting appropriate patients to receive treatment with dental implants: priorities for the NHS. London: Royal College of Surgeons; 2012.
[9] Bryant SR, Zarb GA. Outcomes of implant prosthodontic treatment in older adults. J Can Dent Assoc 2002;68:97-102.
[10] Al-Sabbagh M, Thomas MV, Bhavsar I, De Leeuw R. Effect of bisphosphonate and age on implant failure as determined by patient-reported outcomes. J Oral Implant 2015;XLI:e287-e91.
[11] Wessing B, Montero E, Urban I, Zechner W, Schuh C, Alandez J, Gonzalez-marting O, Polizzi G, Meloni S, Emmerich M, Sanz I. Randomized, prospective, multi-center study evaluating creos xenoprotect versus Bio-Gide in dehiscence defects: bone augmentation results. European Association for Osseointegration Congress; 2016.
[12] Wessing B, Montero E, Urban I, Zechner W, Schuh C, Alandez J, Gonzalez-marting O, Polizzi G, Meloni S, Emmerich M, Sanz I. Randomized, prospective, multi-center study evaluating creos xenoprotect versus Bio-Gide in dehiscence defects: bone augmentation results. European Association for Osseointegration Congress; 2016.
[13] Clementini M, Morlupi A, canullo L, Agrestini C, Barlattani A. Success rate of dental implants inserted in horizontal and vertical guided bone regenerated areas: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac surg 2012;41:847-52.
[14] Shin S-Y, Hwang Y-J, Kim J-h, Seol Y-J. Long-term results of new deproteinized bovine bone material in a maxillary sinus graft procedure. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2014;44:259-64.
[15] Wessing B, Montero E, Urban I, Zechner W, Schuh C, Alandez J, Gonzalez-marting O, Polizzi G, Meloni S, Emmerich M, Sanz I. Randomized, prospective, multi-center study evaluating creos xenoprotect versus Bio-Gide in dehiscence defects: bone augmentation results. European Association for Osseointegration Congress; 2016.
No Comments
No comments yet.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
