Vertical distraction of the severely resorbed mandible

Raghoebar, Gerry M.; Heydenrijk, Kees; Vissink, Arjan

doi:10.1016/s0901-5027(00)80071-5

Cited by 57 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both limited and extended (fully edentulous patients) defects can be treated. Histologic results seem to demonstrate that DO allows the formation of an adequate quality and quantity of bone tissue, which can allow primary stability of implants and favorably withstand the biomechanical demands of loaded implants. Biopsies taken at the time of implant placement, after consolidation of the distracted area (McAllister 2001; Raghoebar et al 2002; Zaffe et al 2002; Chiapasco et al 2006d), demonstrated that distraction is able to induce new bone formation that matures in a manner similar to natural bone. Survival and success rates of implants placed in distracted areas are consistent with those reported in the literature as regards implants placed in native, non‐regenerated/reconstructed bone (Albrektsson et al 1986; Adell et al 1990a; Lekholm et al 1994, 1999a; Lindquist et al 1996; Buser et al 1997; Arvidson et al 1998; Weber et al 2000; Leonhardt et al 2002). Yet, some disadvantages of this technique must be underlined: Frequent lingual/palatal inclination of the distracted segment has been reported by some authors, with an incidence varying from 11% to 39% (Jensen et al 2002; Chiapasco et al 2004b), probably due to local muscle pull, inappropriate device positioning, and/or poor device trajectory.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Augmentation procedures for the rehabilitation of deficient edentulous ridges with oral implants

Chiapasco

Zaniboni

Boisco

2006

Clinical Oral Implants Res

512

534

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Augmentation procedures for the rehabilitation of deficient edentulous ridges with oral implants

Chiapasco

Zaniboni

Boisco

2006

Clinical Oral Implants Res

512

534

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a second‐stage procedure, implants are placed in the anterior mandible. Raghoebar et al (2000, 2002) and Chiapasco et al (2001) mention good short‐term results and few complications with this technique applied in probably somewhat less extremely resorbed mandibles. The technique requires absolute compliance of the patient.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Some authors place a transmandibular implant in this situation (Bosker et al 1991; Powers et al 1994; Verhoeven et al 2001; Stellingsma 2004). For anterior mandibles showing a less extreme degree of resorption, relatively long implants are placed after augmentation of the jaw by means of a sandwich osteotomy combined with interpositional bone‐grafting (Grätz & Sailer 1994; Satow et al 1997; Stellingsma et al 1998; Stellingsma 2004), or by means of vertical distraction (Raghoebar et al 2000; Chiapasco et al 2001; Raghoebar et al 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Permucosal implants combined with iliac crest onlay grafts used in extreme atrophy of the mandible: long‐term results of a prospective study

Verhoeven

Cune

2005

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thirteen patients received an onlay bone-graft augmentation to their severely atrophic mandible in combination with simultaneous implant insertion. This treatment modality was studied in a long-term prospective clinical and radiographic study. A reproducible measurement method, consisting of oblique lateral cephalometric radiographs, in combination with an image analysis system, was used to accurately assess the graft resorption rate. On average, 51% (95% confidence interval 42-61%) of the grafted bone height remained after 10-11 years. Resorption of the graft occurred mainly during the first years and showed a marked degree of individual variance. In the following years, the resorption rate followed a predictable pattern in most of our patients. Ventral and dorsal sites exhibited a similar degree of resorption. Peri-implantitis occurred in nine patients. Ten muco-gingival surgical interventions were necessary in four of these nine patients. No implants were lost and 12 patients indicated that they were satisfied. It is concluded that the described surgical technique should be used on stringent indication only, and alternative techniques are discussed.

show abstract

“…Recently, an inventory by Soehardi et al on the number of fractures that occurred in conjunction with implants placed in edentulous patients in the Dutch population during the period 1980–2007 elucidated an incidence of only 0.033% [28]. Nevertheless, it was stressed that if a fracture does occur, this complication is difficult to treat [16, 28]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implants in the severely resorbed mandibles: whether or not to augment? What is the clinician’s preference?

Perdijk

Meijer

Bronkhorst

et al. 2011

Oral Maxillofac Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe aim of this study is to inventory in the Netherlands which therapy is the clinician’s first choice when restoring the edentulous mandible.Material and methodsA questionnaire was sent to all Dutch Oral and Maxillofacial surgeons. As part of this, the surgeons were invited to treat five virtual edentulous patients, differing only in mandibular residual height.ResultsIn cases of a sufficient residual height of 15 mm, all surgeons were in favour to insert solely two implants to anchor an overdenture. In case of a residual height of 12 mm, 10% of the surgeons choose for an augmentation procedure. If a patient was presented with a mandibular height of 10 mm, already 40% of the OMF surgeons executed an augmentation procedure. Most (80%) surgeons prefer the (anterior) iliac crest as donor site. The choice of ‘whether or not to augment’ was not influenced by the surgeon’s age; however, the hospital, where he was trained, did. Surgeons trained in Groningen were more in favour of installing short implants in mandibles with reduced vertical height.DiscussionAs the option overdenture supported on two interforaminal implants is reimbursed by the Dutch health assurance, this treatment modality is very popular in the Netherlands. From a point of costs and to minimize bypass comorbidity, surgeons should be more reluctant in executing augmentation procedures to restore the resorbed edentulous mandible as it is dated in literature that also in mandibles with a residual height of 10 mm or less, solely placing implants, thus without an augmentation procedure in advance, is a reliable treatment option.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10006-011-0285-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Vertical distraction of the severely resorbed mandible

Cited by 57 publications

References 18 publications

Augmentation procedures for the rehabilitation of deficient edentulous ridges with oral implants

Augmentation procedures for the rehabilitation of deficient edentulous ridges with oral implants

Permucosal implants combined with iliac crest onlay grafts used in extreme atrophy of the mandible: long‐term results of a prospective study

Implants in the severely resorbed mandibles: whether or not to augment? What is the clinician’s preference?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About