implants international magazine of oral implantology

case report I I 29implants2_2012 useofsurgicaltechniquesforthesamepurpose.11–14 Our technique offers some advantages over other tech- niques, such as being less invasive, requiring a shorter rehabilitationtimeandbeingoflowercostwhencom- paredwiththecostsofbonegraftsandmembranes.This technique should be applied only when the vestibular and lingual/palatal walls are separated by bone mar- row2,15,16 andwhenthebaseofthedefectisgreaterthan thebonecrestattheborder.17 Evaluation showed an average increase of 113.3 ± 29.6%whencomparedwiththevolumeofthebonebe- foresurgery.Intheliterature,thereisnoinformationre- garding the amount of expansion needed to allow im- plant placement. There are also only a few studies that evaluatetheincreaseinbonethicknessafterexpansion of an atrophic alveolar ridge.2, 8, 16 Thus, it is recom- mendedthatmorestudiesbeconductedtoinvestigate these aspects more accurately. Most reports focus on the maxilla. A probable reason for this might be re- searchers’ preference for examining bone of low den- sity.Thetechniquereportedoninthisarticlecanbesaid to be safe and to furnish predictable results. Very few complications have been reported,17 but care must be taken not to create excessive expansion, leading to a fracture of the vestibular wall. In this case, it would be impossible to stabilise the implant. In a histological studyevaluatingthenewboneformedinexpandedar- eas,highosteogenicactivitywasrevealed.10 Theauthors mentionimportantdetailsthatdeterminethesecondi- tions:thespacecreatedundergoesspontaneousossifi- cationandthenewlyformedboneenablestheconsoli- dationofthepalateandthevestibularwall.Thisproce- dureenablesboneformationinanoptimallyexpanded space. _Conclusion Weconcludethattherangeofmaterialsavailableon the market offers new alternatives with many advan- tages for the professional and the patient. The use of thesematerialscanfacilitatetheplacementofimplants in areas of insufficient bone thickness, avoiding the needforregenerativeprocedurespriortoand/orsimul- taneous with the implantation, and thereby reducing costsandtreatmenttime.Furtherstudiesarenecessary toassessthesematerials._ Editorial note: A complete list of references is available fromthepublisher. Figs. 16a & b_Program, during calibration, used to measure the bone volume before (a) and after the expansion (b). Fig. 17_Diagram comparing the measurements before and after the expansion. Table I_Values and averages obtained after measurement with Image Tool. Fig. 16a Fig. 16b Fig. 17 Case/Area Volume Final volume Increase Gain (%) I/11 2.7 6.1 3.4 125.9% II/13 2.2 5.9 3.7 168.1% II/14 2.9 6.4 3.5 120.6% II/16 2.8 5.1 2.3 82.1% II/23 3.3 6.3 3.0 90.9% II/24 2.9 5.5 2.6 89.6% II/26 2.5 5.4 2.9 116.0% Average/SD 2.7 ± 0.345 5.8 ± 0.491 3.0 ± 0.506 113.3 ± 29.6% Table I Prof Sergio Alexandre Gehrke Rua Bozano,571 Santa Maria – RS 97015-001 Brazil Tel.:+55 55 3222 7253 sergio.gehrke@hotmail.com _contact implants