Editorial Type:
Article Category: Other
 | 
Online Publication Date: 01 Dec 2014

Correction of Esthetic Complications of a Malpositioned Implant: A Case Letter

PhD
Page Range: 737 – 743
DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-12-00252
Save
Download PDF
<bold>
  <sc>Figures 1 and 2</sc>
  .
</bold>
Figures 1 and 2 .

Figure 1. Initial (a) clinical and (b) radiographic aspects. Figure 2. Image (a) after removal of crown and (b) of the osteotomy to remove the implant, and aspects 30 days after the remotion.


<bold>
  <sc>Figures 3–5</sc>
  .
</bold>
Figures 3–5 .

Figure 3. Image of the second surgery, after opening and elevation of mucosa and use of drill for conformation of the receptor. Figure 4. Access to the mandibular ramus, marking with a trephine (a) and removing blocks (b) to graft. Figure 5. Positioning of the (a) fragments and (b) placement of the screw.


<bold>
  <sc>Figures 6–8</sc>
  .
</bold>
Figures 6–8 .

Figure 6. (a) The suture and (b) the radiography of control at 7 days. Figure 7. The (a) radiographic and (b) clinical aspects after 4 months. Figure 8. Image of (a) the implant insertion and (b) the position 1 mm below the bone level (yellow arrow).


<bold>
  <sc>Figures 9–11</sc>
  .
</bold>
Figures 9–11 .

Figure 9. The (a) abutment positioned and (b) temporary tooth. Figure 10. Radiographic control, (a) 7 days and (b) 4 months postoperation. The yellow arrow indicates a possible bone growth on the implant platform. Figure 11. The (a) abutment with diameter of 4.5 mm, (b) the x-ray, and (c) metal-free crown cemented.


Contributor Notes

Corresponding author, e-mail: sergio.gehrke@hotmail.com
  • Download PDF