All-on-4 treatment of an edentolous patient after autogenous grafting

All-on-4 concept is a treatment method for fixed prosthetic rehabilitation of edentulous jaws with a total of four dental implant, two anterior vertically placed and two posterior inclined implants, supported full arch hybrid prosthetic restorations. It has been reported that inclined implants placed to the posterior region can provide better biomechanical strength, reduced size of prosthetic cantilever extensions, without anatomic limitations and no need for further surgical procedures. Many studies have shown that after the loss of teeth, bone resorption in the jaws is seen more intensely in the posterior regions. All-on-4 treatment concept is usually preferred because of the anatomical limitations of the maxillary sinuses in the posterior maxilla and inferior alveolar nerve in the mandible. Thus, advanced surgical procedures such as bone augmentation in the posterior region are avoided. However, over time resorption in the posterior regions begins to accompany with horizontal resorption of the anterior region. In this case, surgical procedures to increase the bone volume are inevitable to maintain the existing vertical crest height and to be able to provide an implant-supported treatment to the region. In this case report, a 68-year-old female patient, who has edentulous maxilla and only canine teeth in mandible, was treated by grafting anterior maxilla with autogenous bone block grafts obtained from mandibular symphysis, and then the rehabilitation of both jaws prosthetically according to the All-on-4 concept was done. There was no complication in follow-up of the patient for 2 years and there was no bone loss in the periimplant bone except physiologically accepted levels. Thanks to this application, the aesthetic and functional expectations of the patient are met.

Total dişsiz bir hastanın otojen greftleme sonrası All-on-4 konsepti ile tedavisi

All-on-4 tedavi konsepti, anterior bölgeye iki adet dik ve posterior bölgeye iki adet eğimli yerleştirilen, toplam dört implant destekli, tek parça, tüm ark protez uygulamasını içeren, tam dişsiz çenelerin sabit protetik rehebilitasyonu için uygulanan bir tedavi metodudur. Yapılan çalışmalarda, posterior bölgeye eğimli yerleştirilen implantların ileri cerrahi işlemlere gerek kalmadan anatomik sınırlamalara takılmadan uygulanabildiği, biyomekanik kuvvetleri daha iyi karşıladığı, protetik kantilever uzantıların boyutunu azalmasını sağladığı ve ayrıca başarısızlık oranlarında dik yerleştirilen implantlarla karşılaştırıldığında anlamlı bir fark bulunmadığı bildirilmektedir. Dişlerin kaybının ardından çenelerde kemik rezorpsiyonunun posterior sahalarda daha şiddetli görüldüğü yapılan birçok çalışmada gösterilmiştir. All-on-4 tedavi protokolü de genellikle üst çenede posterior bölgede maksiller sinüs, mandibulada ise inferior alveolar sinir kaynaklı anatomik sınırlamalar nedeniyle tercih edilmektedir. Böylelikle posterior bölgede kemik augmentasyonu gibi ileri cerrahi işlemlerden kaçınılmaktadır. Ancak uzun yıllar süren dişsizlikle birlikte posterior bölgedeki rezorpsiyona, anterior bölgede ilk etapta horizontal bölgedeki rezorpsiyonda eşlik etmeye başlar. Bu durumda karşısında mevcut vertikal kret yüksekliğini korumak ve bölgeye implant destekli bir tedavi yapabilmek için kemik hacmini arttırmaya yönelik işlemler kaçınılmaz olmaktadır. Bu olgu sunumunda, üst çenesi total dişsiz, alt çenede ise yalnızca kanin dişleri bulunan ve öğürme refleksi nedeniyle üst total protezini takmakta zorlanan 68 yaşındaki bayan hastada, öncelikle maksilla anterior bölgenin, mandibula simfiz bölgesinden elde edilen blok kemiklerle greftlenmesi ve sonraki süreçte her iki çenenin All-on-4 konsepti ile rehabilitasyonu ve vakanın 2 yıllık takibi rapor edilmektedir.

PDF

___

1. Branemark PI. Vital microscopy of bone marrow in rabbit. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1959; 11(38):1-82.

2. Babbush CA, Hahn JA, Krauser JT, Rosenlicht JL. Dental Implants: The Art and Science. 2nd ed: Saunders; 2010. 544 p.

3. Misch CE. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. 3rd ed: Mosby, Elsevier; 2007. 1120 p.

4. Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Gravito I. All-on-4(R) Treatment Concept for the Rehabilitation of the Completely Edentulous Mandible: A 7-Year Clinical and 5-Year Radiographic Retrospective Case Series with Risk Assessment for Implant Failure and Marginal Bone Level. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015; 17(2): e531-541.

5. Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A, Francischone C, Rigolizzo M. "All-on-4" immediate-function concept for completely edentulous maxillae: a clinical report on the medium (3 years) and long-term (5 years) outcomes. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012; 14 (1): e139-150.

6. Soto-Penaloza D, Zaragozi-Alonso R, Penarrocha-Diago M, Penarrocha-Diago M. The all-on-four treatment concept: Systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent 2017; 9: e474-488.

7. Malo P, Rangert B, Nobre M. "All-on-Four" immediate-function concept with Branemark System implants for completely edentulous mandibles: a retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003; 5(1): 2-9.

8. Clelland NL, Gilat A, McGlumphy EA, Brantley WA. A photoelastic and strain gauge analysis of angled abutments for an implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993; 8: 541-548.

9. Bellini CM, Romeo D, Galbusera F, Agliardi E, Pietrabissa R, et al. A finite element analysis of tilted versus nontilted implant configurations in the edentulous maxilla. Int J Prosthodont 2009; 22: 155-157.

10. Baggi L, Pastore S, Di Girolamo M, Vairo G. Implant-bone load transfer mechanisms in complete-arch prostheses supported by four implants: a three-dimensional finite element approach. J Prosthet Dent 2013; 109: 9-21.

11. Babbush CA, Kanawati A, Kotsakis GA, Hinrichs JE. Patient-related and financial outcomes analysis of conventional full-arch rehabilitation versus the All-on-4 concept: a cohort study. Implant Dent 2014; 23: 218-224.

12. Malo P, Rangert B, Nobre M. All-on-4 immediate-function concept with Branemark System implants for completely edentulous maxillae: a 1-year retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005; 7(1): 88-94.

13. Tan WL, Wong TL, Wong MC, Lang NP. A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 (5)5: 1-21. 14. Chan MH, Holmes C. Contemporary "All-on-4" concept. Dent Clin North Am 2015; 59: 421-470.

15. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Survival and Complications of Zygomatic Implants: An Updated Systematic Review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 74: 1949-1964.

16. Aparicio C, Manresa C, Francisco K, Claros P, Alandez J, et al. Zygomatic implants: indications, techniques and outcomes, and the zygomatic success code. Periodontol 2000 2014; 66: 41-58.

17. Bellini CM, Romeo D, Galbusera F, Taschieri S, Raimondi MT, et al. Comparison of tilted versus nontilted implant-supported prosthetic designs for the restoration of the edentuous mandible: a biomechanical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24: 511-517.

18. Aparicio C, Perales P, Rangert B. Tilted implants as an alternative to maxillary sinus grafting: a clinical, radiologic, and periotest study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2001; 3: 39-49.

19. Krekmanov L, Kahn M, Rangert B, Lindstrom H. Tilting of posterior mandibular and maxillary implants for improved prosthesis support. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000; 15: 405-414.

20. Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A, Moss SM, Molina GJ. A longitudinal study of the survival of All-on-4 implants in the mandible with up to 10 years of follow-up. J Am Dent Assoc 2011; 142: 310-320.

21. Galindo DF, Butura CC. Immediately loaded mandibular fixed implant prostheses using the all-on-four protocol: a report of 183 consecutively treated patients with 1 year of function in definitive prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27: 628-633.

22. Babbush CA, Kutsko GT, Brokloff J. The all-on-four immediate function treatment concept with NobelActive implants: a retrospective study. J Oral Implantol 2011; 37: 431-445.

23. Babbush CA, Brokloff J. A single-center retrospective analysis of 1001 consecutively placed Nobel Active implants. Implant Dent 2012; 21: 28-35.

24. Graves S, Mahler BA, Javid B, Armellini D, Jensen OT. Maxillary all-on-four therapy using angled implants: a 16-month clinical study of 1110 implants in 276 jaws. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2011; 23: 277-287.

25. Babbush CA. Posttreatment quantification of patient experiences with full-arch implant treatment using a modification of the OHIP-14 questionnaire. J Oral Implantol 2012; 38: 251-260.

26. Kois Center L. Implant supported bridge with fixed/ detachable (hybrid) components 2016 [24/12/2017]. Available from: http://www.miafitzgerald.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Implant-Supported-Bridge-with-Fixed-Detachable-Hybrid-Components.pdf.

27. Law C, Bennani V, Lyons K, Swain M. Influence of implant framework and mandibular flexure on the strain distribution on a Kennedy class II mandible restored with a long-span implant fixed restoration: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112: 31-37.

28. Aloy-Prosper A, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Penarrocha-Diago M. The outcome of intraoral onlay block bone grafts on alveolar ridge augmentations: a systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2015; 20: e251-258.

29. Reininger D, Cobo-Vazquez C, Monteserin-Matesanz M, Lopez-Quiles J. Complications in the use of the mandibular body, ramus and symphysis as donor sites in bone graft surgery. A systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2016; 21: e241-249.