Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this prospective clinical cohort study is to evaluate how the use of ovate pontic alongside alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) contributes to soft tissue preservation when placed immediately post-extraction into a socket with or without intact buccal bone plate in the esthetic zone.

Materials and Methods: Twenty-three patients with a non-restorable tooth in the max- illary esthetic zone bound by natural adjacent teeth were recruited for the study. At the time of extraction, patients were assigned to three groups, Group A (type I socket with ARP), B (type II socket with ARP), and C (type II socket with ARP and membrane). Following flapless extraction, an ovate pontic with ARP was placed. Impressions were taken before extraction, and at 3- and 6-month follow-up visits. Master casts were created to measure dimensional alterations. Descriptive statistical analysis compared changes in linear and volumetric measurements over the follow-up period.

Results: After 6 months, Group A showed mean dimensional changes of -1.28 ± 0.75 mm in width, -1.19 ± 0.61 mm in height, and -30.51 ± 17.55 mm3 in volume. Group B had changes of -1.07 ± 0.48 mm in width, -1.12 ± 0.51 mm in height, and -23.36 ± 7.74 mm3 in volume. Group C experienced changes of -1.43 ± 0.41 mm in width, -0.98 ± 0.32 mm in height, and -31.27 ± 9.59 mm3 in volume.

Conclusions: Utilization of an ovate pontic provisional restoration in conjunction with ARP minimizes post-extraction ridge alteration and maintains natural morphology, providing a stable prosthetic foundation for fixed restorations, regardless of bone plate presence.

Abstract
Full-arch implant therapy with immediate provisionalization is a popular procedure. Conventionally, chairside conversion of a prefabricated prosthesis or an abutment-level impression is usually required. This case report describes a novel approach to picking up a prefabricated full-arch prosthesis utilizing various digital techniques. After implant placement and bone reduction was performed using a customized surgical guide, a provisional restoration was seated on a stackable guide and relined with a light-cured material (the “liquid pin”). This material is strong enough to hold the titanium bases in place during the relining procedure yet can be quickly and completely removed from the titanium bases and multi-unit abutments following the pick-up. The liquid pin technique enables the provisional prosthesis to maintain its structural integrity, eliminates the need for a postoperative impression, and allows for minimal adjust- ment before delivery. Together with digital preplanning of the prosthesis, this technique streamlines the workflow for immediate full-arch provisionalization.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of alveolar bone reconstruction simultaneous to implant removal due to peri-implantitis.

Material and Methods: Partial or fully dentulous patients subjected to implant removal due to advanced peri-implantitis (≥50% of bone loss) lesions and seeking to have the failed implant replaced for esthetic or functional reasons were consecutively included. Guided bone regeneration was performed by means of a mixture of xenograft and autogenous bone and a ribose crosslinked barrier membrane. Re-entry for implant placement was performed at 4-month follow-up. Overall, six radiographic variables were assessed before (T0) and after (T1) alveolar bone reconstruction at four levels in ridge width (RW) and height (RH). Peri-implant conditions were evaluated at latest follow-up. Simple and multiple binary logistic regression models were calculated using generalized estimation equations to evaluate the effect of baseline upon reconstructive outcomes.

Results: In total, 20 patients (nimplant=39) met the inclusion criteria. Alveolar RW and RH were augmented from T0 to T1 at all levels. All implants achieved primary stability. Only ~13% were subjected to ancillary bone regeneration simultaneous to implant placement. After a mean follow-up period after loading of ~2.2 years, ~70% implants demonstrated peri-implant health, while mucositis was diagnosed in the remaining implants.

Conclusion: The performance of alveolar bone reconstruction in residual partially contained defects simultaneous to implant removal due to peri-implantitis lesions demonstrates being safe and effective for implant site development.