Bone resorption under chin implants: The orthodontist's role in its diagnosis and management

Polo, Mario

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.06.035

Cited by 17 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…13 The probable reason of such a complication might be the fact that the implants were not stabilized with screws, which could lead to continuous micro-movement, and consequently to bone resorption. 10 In contrast, our study involved the stabilization of all the implants utilizing monocortical fixation screws, which was recommended previously. 9 Passive bone remodeling is a common process that occurs at the early stages after solid silicone implants have been placed, when the body attempts to confine the implants into the facial skeleton.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this process might be continuous if the implants are not stabilized. 10 Absolute fixation of solid implants via a transoral approach requires the placement of at least 1 screw at each corner of the implant, which is clinically unachievable in such a way. However, this can be achieved via a transcutaneous approach, which may in turn carry unfavorable cosmetic outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, in the cases of non-stabilized silicone implants, implant displacement and bone resorption were reported. 10,11 Currently, there is no consensus regarding the stabilization of implants and the required fixation devices (Ti screws vs non-resorbable sutures). It might be due to the fact that there are multiple specialists (maxillofacial, plastic, and head and neck) with a diverse training background referring to such a service.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mandibular angle augmentation using solid silicone implants

Al-Jandan

Marei

2018

Dent. Med. Probl.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. The demand for facial esthetics has increased dramatically to overcome the ongoing aging process and/or improve facial appearance. Objectives. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of using bilateral silicone implants for mandibular angle augmentation. Material and methods. The study involved a prospective analysis of the outcomes of the mandibular angle region augmentation with bilateral silicone implants in 58 patients (2 males and 56 females) within 1 year. All the data was collected either from patients' interviews or their records, after receiving the ethical approval from the relevant hospital. The collected patients' data was analyzed based on 3 main outcomes: occurrence of implant displacement, presence of postoperative infection and patient satisfaction. Only the patients who completed a follow-up of 6 months postoperatively were included in this study. Results. A total of 58 patients received bilateral silicone implants at the mandibular angle with a total of 116 implants, out of which 96 were found intact, with no evidence of complications. The total number of implants that were infected was 5 (4.3%), 16 implants were found displaced (13.8%) and only 3 patients of those without complications were dissatisfied with the final facial appearance (6%). Conclusions. Using solid silicone implants in the augmentation of the mandibular angle resulted in low postoperative infection and displacement rates, as well as in high patient satisfaction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mandibular angle augmentation using solid silicone implants

Al-Jandan

Marei

2018

Dent. Med. Probl.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mario Polo, et al, (2017) discusses the importance of orthodontists regarding the diagnosis and management of bone resorption associated with chin implants [9]. The author reports three patients with bone resorption who were referred for surgical evaluation.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical Reintervention in the Chin in a Patient with a Silicone Chin Implant - A Case Report

Carlini¹,

Lipski²,

Roeder³

2021

JDHOR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of biomaterials may be an option for the treatment mainly of chin deficiencies. One of the most used materials is silicone prostheses. However, some problems with this material were observed, mainly the bone resorption by compression of the musculature, generating intense resorption, as detected in this described clinical case, where fracture of the jaw could occur. Prosthesis removal, chin osteotomy and reconstruction with an allogeneic graft were performed.

show abstract

“…Chin retrusion, or microgenia, is the most common type of chin deformity in the sagittal plane, and it can be evaluated both clinically and using cephalometric analysis. 1 One of the techniques employed to correct this condition is chin implant placement. Allograft materials, such as silicone implants, are used to camouflage chin retrusion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone Remodeling Under Screw-Fixed Chin Implants in Patients With Microgenia: A Cross-Sectional Study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of alloplastic chin implants has been associated with a risk of bone resorption. The aims of this study were to evaluate, in patients with microgenia, the association between chin implants and bone resorption and identify the associated risk factors for such resorption. The sample consisted of 51 patients with microgenia: 17 with chin implants (group A, placed over the course of a 15-year period [2002-2017]) and 34 without implants (group B). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate bone erosion in different areas of the chin. The patients were evaluated, and their medical records were reviewed to identify risk factors. A chi-square or Fisher exact test and the Mann-Whitney test were used to compare groups; resorption sites were compared with Friedman test. Linear regression models were used to evaluate associations between potential risk factors and resorption. Bone resorption was higher in group A than in group B (mean ± SD: 0.98 ± 0.63 mm vs 0.03 ± 0.12 mm; P < .0001). Symphyseal buccal cortical bone in group A was thinner (1.66 ± 0.34 mm) than it was in group B (2.07 ± 0.45 mm), P < .001. Group A showed appositional bone growth and no cortical bone perforation. The mean of the amount of bone resorption of chin implant patients compared with that of those without implants was, on average, 0.99 mm greater (95% confidence interval: 0.64-1.35; P < .001). Although statistically significant differences in bone resorption were observed between groups, these differences were not clinically significant. Thinning of symphyseal buccal cortical bone without perforation and appositional bone growth occurred in chin implant patients, suggesting bone remodeling. Our results suggest that bone that is in contact with chin implants remodels and remains stable throughout the years, instead of undergoing progressive resorption.

show abstract

Bone resorption under chin implants: The orthodontist's role in its diagnosis and management

Cited by 17 publications

References 15 publications

Mandibular angle augmentation using solid silicone implants

Mandibular angle augmentation using solid silicone implants

Surgical Reintervention in the Chin in a Patient with a Silicone Chin Implant - A Case Report

Bone Remodeling Under Screw-Fixed Chin Implants in Patients With Microgenia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About