2 – A New Biologic Classification of Bone Augmentation

e9780867155457_i0044.jpg

CHAPTER 2

A New Biologic Classification of Bone Augmentation

Rolf Ewers, DMD, PhD
Boyd Tomasetti, DMD, MS
Ghali E. Ghali, DDS, MD, FACS
Ole T. Jensen, DDS, MS

There is a miracle when two things unite to form something new.

—Samuel Butler

Augmentation of alveolar bone loss should constitute regeneration of the tissue being replaced and not simply spatial repair.1 Osseous and soft tissue surgery should therefore reconstruct both form and function of the desired replacement tissue.

e9780867155457_i0045.jpg Rationale for the New Classification

Reconstructive bone graft repair of osseous defects does not always form well-vascularized bone, even when the defect is filled.2 True regeneration implies that the defect is filled with viable mineralized tissue that models and remodels as bone and is not an admixture of devitalized inclusions or scar tissue. Bone generation methods for defect reconstruction can be differentiated according to bone graft vitality, the extent of consolidation, and marginal integration. These aspects can only be verified by late-term biopsy findings to determine the extent of vital mineralization.3 However, routine biopsy analysis is impractical.

Short of invasive procedures to verify graft performance, hard tissue augmentation can be empirically classified based on vascularization of the grafting approach used, in order to suggest the likely vitality of the graft. Therefore, we propose that our earlier classification4 for bone generation techniques in defect reconstruction be differentiated into five classes, according to vascularization or induction of vascularization:

e9780867155457_i0046.jpg

Fig 2-1a Class I: Microanastomosed free bone flap.

e9780867155457_i0047.jpg

Fig 2-1b Class II: Distraction osteogenesis.

e9780867155457_i0048.jpg

Fig 2-1c Class III: Pedicled segmental osteotomy.

e9780867155457_i0049.jpg

Fig 2-1e Class Va: Onlay block graft.

e9780867155457_i0050.jpg

Fig 2-1f Class Vb: Guided bone regeneration.

e9780867155457_i0051.jpg

Fig 2-1d Class IV: Bone morphogenetic induction graft. BMP-2—bone morphogenetic protein 2.

e9780867155457_i0052.jpg Biologic Responses to Bone Augmentation Techniques

Class V: Nonvascularized bone grafts

Class Va: Onlay block graft

Nonvascularized autogenous block bone grafts are stabilized on the host bed with rigid fixation.17 These types of grafts must be revascularized and undergo significant remodeling by creeping substitution.17 These types of grafts do not become fully consolidated and often remain as a mixture of devitalized bone.18 Onlay block grafts are at great risk for long-term resorption, with a possible volume loss of 50% or greater.19,20 Different block bone grafts perform differently, and iliac corticocancellous, calvarial, and mandibular block grafts have varied responses.21–23

Fig 2-2 Microanastomosed free bone flaps

e9780867155457_i0053.jpg

Fig 2-2a Preoperative frontal facial view.

e9780867155457_i0054.jpg

Fig 2-2b Preoperative panoramic radiograph demonstrating extent of destruction. Confines of the lesion extend beyond the film borders.

e9780867155457_i0055.jpg

Fig 2-2c Immediate osseous reconstruction is achieved with a microvascular free tissue transfer (MFTT) of a fibula flap secured to the plate. (MFTT by Dr D. D. Kim, Shreveport, LA.)

e9780867155457_i0056.jpg

Fig 2-2d Immediate postoperative panoramic radiograph. Note the removal of both coronoid processes to facilitate rehabilitation.

e9780867155457_i0057.jpg

Fig 2-2e Immediate postoperative lateral cephalogram demonstrating adequate relationship with maxilla for dental rehabilitation.

e9780867155457_i0058.jpg

Fig 2-2f Postoperative view 1 year following resection.

e9780867155457_i0059.jpg

Fig 2-2g Postoperative panoramic radiograph demonstrating osseous healing at the osteotomy and fixation sites at 1-year follow-up.

e9780867155457_i0060.jpg

Fig 2-2h Intraoperative view following trans-oral plate removal demonstrates appearance of “neo-mandible.”

e9780867155457_i0061.jpg

Fig 2-2i Immediate placement of six dental implants following plate removal.

e9780867155457_i0062.jpg

Fig 2-2j Postoperative panoramic radiograph shows absence of plate and placement of implants.

e9780867155457_i0063.jpg

Figs 2-2k to 2-2o Definitive frontal (k) and three-quarter (l) facial views 2 years after initial resection and MFTT reconstruction. Definitive prosthesis from open-mouth (m) and closed-mouth (n) views. (o) Definitive panoramic radiograph demonstrating implant attachments. (Prosthesis by Dr W. P. Cunningham, Shreveport, LA.)

e9780867155457_i0064.jpg

Fig 2-3 Histologic view of a core specimen taken from the region of a mandibular right second premolar 3 weeks after the completion of a 3-month healing period for a distraction procedure. (top) Apical region; (bottom) caudal region; (yellow lines) former osteotomy lines (toludine blue; original magnification).

e9780867155457_i0065.jpg

Figs 2-4a and 2-4b Histologic specimens of a dental implant removed after almost 19 years of loading in a 63-year-old woman. The original procedure involved a maxillary sinus floor elevation and grafting with Bio-Oss (Geistlich) and immediate application of the dental implant. The implant was removed because of peri-implant infection and maxillary sinusitis. (white arrows) Direct contact of the implant surface with the foreign-body material (toludine blue; original magnification ×15).

e9780867155457_i0066.jpg

Fig 2-5 Histologic view of peri-implant osseointegration 5 years after treatment and 3 years after implant placement. A defect was filled with Algisorb following removal of an odontogenic keratocyst, and an implant was placed. The implant was removed because it was located very close to a recurrence of the tumor (toludine blue; original magnification ×2). (yellow box) Apical detail of the implant on the right side (original magnification ×20); (blue box) increased magnification of the detail (original magnification ×40).

e9780867155457_i0067.jpg Surgical Procedures and Their Applications

The surgical procedures that fall within each classification category are listed in Box 2-1.

Re-anastomosed fibula bone grafts

The ideal graft is a vascularized hard and soft tissue structure that is transferred to a deficit site with vascular re-anastomosis. Even in complex oral and maxillofacial surgical defects (Fig 2-6a), osseous union and a stable reconstruction can be obtained following a well mortised fixed graft reconstruction (Figs 2-6b to 2-6e). Sources for vascularized bone flaps include the iliac crest, scapula, radius, and fibula, with the fibula being the site the most frequently employed (Figs 2-6f to 2-6i). Maxillary reconstruction of a large oral antral communication is completed with implant placement followed by prosthetic management (Figs 2-6j and 2-6k). Treatment of this type of defect cannot be done without the optimal bone healing provided by a vascularized bone graft.

Fig 2-6 Re-anastomosed fibula bone graft

e9780867155457_i0068.jpg

Fig 2-6a Preoperative intraoral view demonstrating oro-antral communication and solitary implant.

e9780867155457_i0069.jpg

Fig 2-6b Preparation of the maxillary defect to produce adequate exposure of the bony buttresses.

e9780867155457_i0070.jpg

Fig 2-6c Following a single osteotomy of the fibula, rigid fixation is established via 2.0-mm plates and screws for the MFTT. (MFTT by Dr D. D. Kim, Shreveport, LA.)

e9780867155457_i0071.jpg

Fig 2-6d Primary closure of skin paddle achieved with 3-0 resorbable suture prior to initiation of vascular anastamosis to neck vessels.

e9780867155457_i0072.jpg

Fig 2-6e Intraoral appearance just prior to implant placement and flap thinning, approximately 5 months after placement of the fibula flap.

e9780867155457_i0073.jpg

Fig 2-6f Panoramic radiograph just prior to implant placement.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Jan 8, 2015 | Posted by in Implantology | Comments Off on 2 – A New Biologic Classification of Bone Augmentation
Premium Wordpress Themes by UFO Themes