Editorial Type:
Article Category: Case Report
 | 
Online Publication Date: 06 Mar 2020

Oral Rehabilitation With Dental Implants and the Importance of a Preventive Evaluation for Osteonecrosis of the Jaws Associated With Medications

DDS, MS,
DDS,
DDS,
DDS, PhD,
DDS, PhD,
DDS, PhD,
DDS, MS,
DDS, MS, and
DDS, PhD
Page Range: 431 – 437
DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00275
Save
Download PDF

Osteonecrosis of the jaw is a possible oral complication resulting from antiresorptive therapies, such as bisphosphonates (Bfs). Although the etiology is not entirely clear, it has been shown to be dependent on several factors, with the traumatic stimulation caused by the placement of teeth implants indicated as one of the predisposing factors to this pathology. The indications and preventive methods for performing these procedures have been questioned, making it essential to determine the proper protocols. Thus, the present study aims to discuss the risks of the development of osteonecrosis in patients undergoing dental implant surgery who use Bfs as well as to discuss related local and systemic factors and possible methods for preventing this side effect. The study also aims to present a clinical case of an osteopenic patient who used Bfs and underwent rehabilitation through implants according to specific protocols, which resulted in successful treatment.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Initial panoramic radiograph of the patient.


Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Installation of the implants in region of elements 11 and 21. (a) Incision and syndesmotomy. (b) Surgical guide test. (c) Installed implants observing parallelism. (d) Occlusal view of installed implants. (e) Installation of the cicatrizadores. (f) Suture.


Figures 3 and 4.
Figures 3 and 4.

Figure 3. Provisional multiple prosthesis installed. (a) Front view of the prosthesis comprising elements 12, 11, 21, and 22. (b) Occlusal view of the prosthesis. Figure 4. Metaloceramics installed. (a) Region of 12, 11, 21, and 22. (b) Region of 36 and 46.


Figures 5 and 6.
Figures 5 and 6.

Figure 5. Osseointegrated implants. (a) Region of 46. (b) Region of 36. (c) Region of 11 and 21. Figure 6. Panoramic radiograph of the patient in a 2-year follow-up.


Contributor Notes

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