Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-05-12, 09:42:21 | version 1.38.0
| industry Vertical bone augmenta- tion procedures—Part II Author: Prof. Dr Dr Florian G. Draenert, M.D., D.D.S., Ph.D., Germany Adequate alveolar bone at the desired implant site and bony support of the gingival soft tissue is the prerequisite for a successful dental implan- tation and ideal aesthetic outcome. Complex augmentations are challenging and represent a hotspot of research. This article discusses complex bone augmentation techniques and their alterna- tives. This work is a sequel of the publication “Ver- tical bone augmentation procedures—Part I” pub- lished in implants 4/2013 that takes into account other publications.1-3 Institut Straumann AG is one of the few global implant companies which, along with the Scandi- navians, pioneered the field of implant dentistry. Straumann provides a classic range of tissue-level implants and modern bone-level implants. Im- plants from this company are some of the few that have a scientifically proven improved third surface technology, the SLActive surface, in addition to general sandblasting and acid etching providing better osseointegration by hydrophilisation.4 It is the only company that offers this triple technology for all implants. The company also offers Roxolid, a metal alloy made of titanium and zirconium, with an increased fracture strength as well as good os- seointegration.5 At the IDS in 2015, the company launched a second version of the bone-level implants with the same pros- thetic connection. The BLT, Bone Level Tapered, im- plant was introduced to supplement the BL implant line. Based on the ten years’ experience with the BL implant, the apex of the implant was tapered, which leads to an increase in the primary stability with no in- crease of pressure at the marginal implant interface.6 The angle of the tip was selected so that the tapered tip is longer at 5 mm than other tapered implants and therefore achieves better site-relieving stability. The remaining body has parallel walls and allows a calcu- lable site pressure in complex augmented situations. Tissue level concepts are well known.7 This concept has the drawback of a supragingival material edge that cannot be reliably avoided. It has a classic design that achieves very good marginal bone preservation over a very long period. Nevertheless, correctly restored modern bone-level implants can achieve adequate Fig. 1: Comparison of the shell (A) and block techniques (B). 32 implants 2 2017