Contact
Information

Navigation
Introduction
Overview

1. Introduction

2. Historical Perspective

3. Maxillofacial Application

4. The Process

5. The Device

Chapter One
Principles of Alveolar Distraction Osteogenesis
    

     1.  Section I

     2.  Section II

     3.  Section III

     4.  Section IV

     5.  Section V

     6.  Section VI

     7.  Section VII

     8.  Section VIII

     9.  Section IX

   10.  Section X

   11.  Section XI

Chapter Two
Alveolar Distraction Osteogenesis

1. Section I

2. Section II

3. Section III

4. Section IV

5. Section V

6. Section VI

7. Section VII

8. Section VIII

9. Section IX

Chapter Three
Maxillary Alveolar Distraction
Osteogenesis

1. Section I

2. Section II

3. Section III

4. Section IV

5. Section V

6. Section VI

7. Section VII
   

A. This 20-year-old presented with an alveolar deficiency of the maxilla. An impacted cuspid tooth was managed by surgical exposure and orthodontic traction. The tooth movement was not successful and the result was a defect in the alveolar ridge. The lateral incisor was underdeveloped and was housed in an incompletely formed alveolus. An implant restorative plan was considered because (1) the remaining teeth were unrestored, (2) the lateral incisor was not a good bridge abutment, and (3) a four unit bridge wouold involve preparing the left central incisor, lateral incisor, and first premolar.

A.

B. The lateral incisor root is poorly developed and there is an osseous defect on its distal aspect.

B.

C. This computer simulation shows a possible implant position. Although there is adequate bone to place an implant in the cuspid site without ridge reconstruction, the resulting fixture position would compromise the adjacent teeth. The relationship between the lateral incisor root and the available implant recipient site is unfavaorable. Without ridge reconstruction, the position of the fixture head would be nearly at the level of the root apex. The region of the alveolus between the fixture head and the lateral incisor root, shown by the arrow, would be at risk of resorption as the gingiva attachment formed on the implant. Large discrepancies between the attachment level on the tooth and the anticipated gingival attachment on the tooth should be avoided.

C.

 

Next Section