The Journal of Implant & Advanced Clinical Dentistry
Search through the entire journal archive by title, author(First or Last name), or keyword

Maxillary Anterior Immediate Implants – Periosteal Pedicle Graft

  • Journal:Maxillary Anterior Immediate Implants – Periosteal Pedicle Graft Volume: Vol 6, No. 6 Date: September 2015
    Authors:M. Bajali, Azz. Abdulgani, M. Abu-Hussein, Major (Dr) B Harshavardhana, Major (Dr) Reenesh Mechery, Dr. Peter Chien, Dr. Rita Hung, Dr. Zizhong Wu, Dr. Amanpreet Singh, Dr. Neeraj Mahajan

    Anterior Maxillary Extraction, Immediate Implant Placement, and Provisionalization:


    1. Anterior Maxillary Extraction, Immediate Implant Placement, and Provisionalization with Two Years Follow-up: A Case Report By M. Bajali, Azz. Abdulgani, M. Abu-Hussein

    Endosseous dental implant therapy is rapidly becoming the prosthetic standard of care for a vast array of clinical applications, however, despite the high success rate of endosseous implant therapy, it has yet to achieve wide public acceptance and utilization.1 Endosseous implant therapy in the mandible (parasymphyseal mandible) has repeatedly been
    reported at a success rate of 95% or better,yet public utilization of endosseous implant therapy has not exceeded 5%. The most frequently cited reasons for underutilization of endosseous implant therapy are that treatment cost is perceived to be too high and treatment takes too long (Branemark’s original treatment protocols required up to a year
    or more to complete treatment). An obvious area of focus has been to decrease the amount of time necessary to complete implant therapy. Approaches to achieve this goal have dominated clinical research and practice: delayed/immediate implant loading, improving implant surface technology (promotion of quicker healing and better osseointegration), and immediate placement of an endosseous implant after extraction of a natural tooth.1 In this paper a case presentation supporting the last of these three approaches will be shown.

    2. Periosteal Pedicle Graft: An invigorate for root coverage procedures By Major (Dr) B Harshavardhana, Major (Dr) Reenesh Mechery

    Gingival recession is defined as the displacement of the gingival marginal tissue apical to the cement enamel junction (CEJ).1 In most of the cases, patients with gingival recession generally have complaints regarding aesthetics, dentin hypersensitivity, or inability to perform proper oral hygiene procedures. In addition, if
    the exposure of root cementum and/or dentin to the oral environment due to recession is not addressed it can lead to root caries and other problems such as abrasions and chemical erosion. Predisposing factors for gingival recession
    are a thin gingival biotype, prominence of teeth, and patients with obsessive oral hygiene. Miller, based on anatomical considerations, has classified the recession defects into 4 types.

    3. Review of Platform Switching and a New Concept Proposed for Tissue Recession & Dental Implant Exposure By Dr. Peter Chien, Dr. Rita Hung, Dr. Zizhong Wu

    Contributing factors that lead to minor or advanced recession of hard and soft tissue will invariably result in the failure of an endosseous implant placement. Generally, facial/buccal plates resorb 1.5 mm- 2 mm1,2 within the first year after surgery which means that, in combination with subsequent bone loss, it may result in implant thread exposure and subsequent implant failure.3,4 An expectation of 0.1 mm – 0.2 mm of bone resorption will apply to each subsequent year.5,6
    Lazzara and Porter were the first to develop an ideology of shifting an implant-abutment junction towards a centralized location to confine the inflammatory cell infiltrations within a 90-degree region which reduces the loss of marginal bone loss.7 By relocating the interfacing region between abutment and implant surface area toward a central axis, the micro gap is relocated away from the contacting surface of the crestal bone.8 This design limits
    concentrations of infiltration zone.

    4. Comparative Evaluation of Remineralization Potential of Different Materials on Enamel Lesion: An In Vitro Study By Dr. Amanpreet Singh, Dr. Neeraj Mahajan

    The aim of this study was to assess and compare the ability of Tooth Mousse (CPPACP containing toothpaste), Tooth Mousse Plus (CPP-ACP/ fluoride 900 ppm containing toothpaste) and Novamin (calcium sodium phosphosilicate containing toothpaste) to remineralize early enamel lesion in vitro.

“One Drill® System” by OsseoFuse ten years clinical follow up!

Recent Issues