Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
   
  Home | About us | Editorial board | Search
Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Advertise
Instructions | Online submission| Contact us | Subscribe |

 

Login  | Users Online: 1169  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 



 
 Table of Contents  
CASE REPORT
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 170-173  

Segmental osteotomy, implants, and restorative procedures for the treatment of an extruded maxillary alveolar segment


1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Goa Dental College and Hospital, Bambolim, Goa, India
2 Department of Prosthodontics, Goa Dental College and Hospital, Bambolim, Goa, India
3 Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Goa Dental College and Hospital, Bambolim, Goa, India

Date of Web Publication17-Dec-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Paul Chalakkal
Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Goa Dental College and Hospital, Bambolim - 403 202, Goa
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_487_18

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

This case report highlights a case of full-mouth rehabilitation in a 38-year-old female. Extrusion of the right posterior maxillary alveolar segment had resulted due to the presence of an opposing edentulous mandibular span, which had led to complete absence of restorative space in the lower arch. Maxillary posterior segmental osteotomy was carried out to obtain adequate space for placing an implant-supported prosthesis in the opposing edentulous mandibular span. The procedures before the surgery consisted of articulation of the diagnostic casts on to a semi-adjustable Hanau™ Wide-Vue articulator and a mock surgery on the upper cast to assess the amount of segmental osteotomy necessary to accommodate an implant-supported prosthesis in the lower edentulous region. Other procedures included implant placements, root canal treatment, post and core build-up, and full-crown placement on various teeth.

Keywords: Implant, interarch space, porcelain fused to metal, post and core, posterior maxillary segmental osteotomy


How to cite this article:
Gavhane S, Da Costa GC, Chalakkal P, De Souza N. Segmental osteotomy, implants, and restorative procedures for the treatment of an extruded maxillary alveolar segment. Contemp Clin Dent 2019;10:170-3

How to cite this URL:
Gavhane S, Da Costa GC, Chalakkal P, De Souza N. Segmental osteotomy, implants, and restorative procedures for the treatment of an extruded maxillary alveolar segment. Contemp Clin Dent [serial online] 2019 [cited 2020 Aug 4];10:170-3. Available from: http://www.contempclindent.org/text.asp?2019/10/1/170/273163


   Introduction Top


After the extraction of mandibular posteriors, there is a tendency for supraeruption of the opposing maxillary posterior dentoalveolar segment, resulting in inadequate interarch space for the placement of any dental prosthesis in the edentulous span in the lower arch.[1],[2],[3] In severe cases of supraeruption, extraction of the supraerupted maxillary molar teeth is often proposed.[2],[4] However, posterior maxillary segmental osteotomy (PMSO) is an effective procedure for obtaining sufficient interarch restorative space in these cases.[1],[3] This technique has also been recommended for obtaining space for placing implant-supported fixed or removable prosthesis in the mandibular molar region.[5],[6],[7] This case report highlights a case where full-mouth rehabilitation comprising of PMSO, mandibular implant, post and core, and porcelain fused to metal (PFM) crown procedures were carried out to restore esthetics and function.


   Case Report Top


A 38-year-old female patient reported to the Department of Prosthodontics with the complaint of broken anterior teeth [Figure 1]a. Her maxillary arch contained all teeth except the third molars and the right first premolar, while the mandibular arch was devoid of molars on both sides and premolars on the left side [Figure 1]b and [Figure 1]c. The upper central incisors were found to be nonvital with coronal discoloration and loss of tooth structure (Ellis class IV fracture). The edentulous span in the lower arch on the right side had resulted in supraeruption of the opposing dentoalveolar segment consisting of teeth 15, 16 and 17, leading to complete absence of restorational space on the lower arch [Figure 1]d. However, supraeruption of the left maxillary posterior dentoalveolar segment had not occurred [Figure 2]a. Although her only requirement was to have esthetic restorations on her upper central incisors, the importance of posterior rehabilitation to prevent excessive forces in the anterior region was explained to her. Informed consent was obtained from the patient after the full-mouth rehabilitation treatment plan was explained. A computed tomography scan was obtained to assess the periodontal and endodontic status of 15, 16, and 17 and the alveolar bone height and width of the corresponding mandibular edentulous span [Figure 2b, [Figure 2]c, [Figure 2]d. Alginate impressions were made of both the arches, and the diagnostic casts obtained were articulated on to a semi-adjustable Hanau™ Wide-Vue articulator. Acrylic teeth (34, 35, 36, and 46) were placed using wax over the edentulous regions on the lower cast with reference to the occlusal plane. A mock surgery was carried out on the upper cast by cutting and lifting up the entire right posterior segment along with teeth to assess the amount of segmental osteotomy necessary to accommodate an implant-supported prosthesis in the lower-right edentulous region [Figure 3]a and [Figure 3]b. It was decided to shift the right posterior maxillary alveolar segment containing 15, 16, and 17 to a posterior–superior direction by approximately 7 mm. Under general anesthesia, after administering local anesthesia, a buccal full-thickness flap was raised [Figure 3]c. Horizontal osteotomy was performed from the second premolar till the maxillary tuberosity, on the right side [Figure 3]d. A vertical osteotomy was carried out between 13 and 15, followed by a palatal osteotomy. The maxillary posterior segment was then separated and shifted as planned and was fixed using plates and screws [Figure 4]a. Intraoral resorbable vicryl sutures [Figure 4]b were placed and intermaxillary fixation was carried out. After 2 weeks, the sutures and the intermaxillary fixation were removed. Six weeks after the segmental osteotomy was carried out, root canal treatment was performed for 11 and 21, and post space was created. Root canal impressions were made with pattern resin, using the direct technique [Figure 4]c. Cast metal posts and cores were then fabricated and cemented [Figure 4]d, followed by temporary crown placement over 11 and 21 [Figure 5]a. A ridge-split procedure using micro-saw and ridge expanders (Esset kit; Ostem) had to be performed since the width of the alveolar ridge was found to be inadequate [Figure 5]b. Implant placement was done in place of 34, 36, and 46 [Figure 5]c. In the upper arch, tooth preparation was carried out for 16, 15, 13, 12, 11, 21, and 22 to receive PFM crowns [Figure 5]d. In the lower arch, the second-stage surgery was performed, cover screws were exposed, and abutments were placed. After tooth preparation was carried out for 44 and 45 to receive PFM crowns [Figure 6]a, final abutment level impressions for both the arches were made using Aquasil (Dentsply) addition silicone [Figure 6]b. PFM crowns were fabricated and cemented [Figure 6]c, [Figure 6]d and [Figure 7]a, and a posttreatment orthopantomograph was obtained [Figure 7]b. The patient was esthetically and functionally satisfied. One year posttreatment evaluation showed no esthetic or functional changes.
Figure 1: (a) Anterior view, (b) maxillary occlusal view, (c) mandibular occlusal view, (d) right lateral view

Click here to view
Figure 2: (a) Left lateral view, (b) computed tomography scan showing upper arch, (c) computed tomography scan showing lower arch, (d) computed tomography scan showing the narrow alveolar bone width of the lower-right arch

Click here to view
Figure 3: (a) Articulated diagnostic casts (right side) showing the mock surgery in the maxilla and acrylic tooth (46) on the lower arch, (b) articulated diagnostic casts (left side) showing acrylic teeth (34, 35, and 36) on the lower arch, (c) buccal full-thickness flap raised, (d) horizontal osteotomy

Click here to view
Figure 4: (a) Fixation with plates and screws after segmental osteotomy, (b) sutures placed after segmental osteotomy, (c) root canal impressions made with pattern resin, (d) cast metal posts and cores cemented

Click here to view
Figure 5: (a) Temporary crown placement, (b) ridge-split procedure using micro-saw, (c) Implant placement, (d) tooth preparation in the upper arch

Click here to view
Figure 6: (a) Tooth preparation in the lower arch, (b) final impressions of both arches made using addition silicone, (c) porcelain fused to metal crowns cemented (anterior view), (d) porcelain fused to metal crowns cemented (right lateral view)

Click here to view
Figure 7: (a) Porcelain fused to metal crowns cemented (left lateral view), (b) posttreatment orthopantomograph

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


PMSO is a procedure that changes the position of maxillary alveolar bone fragments containing teeth to improve or correct skeletal malocclusion. The procedure may also be done in the anterior maxillary region.[8],[9] PMSO has also been recommended for the treatment of open bite and deep bite in the molar region.[1] PMSO has various advantages such as preservation of teeth contained in the segment, creation of sufficient interarch space for any dental restoration, reestablishment of occlusion, cost-effectiveness, and minimization of edentulous space.[10] PMSO may result in complications such as postoperative infection, loss of vitality of concerned teeth, bone necrosis, hemorrhage, root damage, and inflammatory root resorption.[11] However, none of the above complications occurred after the procedure, neither was there any root damage or loss of vitality in relation to 15. The removal of a tooth or teeth in the region of the vertical osteotomy is usually necessary to carry out segmental osteotomy. However, in this case, removal was not required, since vertical osteotomy could be easily carried out between 13 and 15 since 14 was absent. No conclusive protocol has been suggested with regard to whether maxillary segmental osteotomy and mandibular implant placement may be carried out during the same appointment or not.[6],[7],[12] However, if both procedures are performed during the same appointment, the duration of treatment would get shortened.[4] If the supraeruption is minimal, coronoplasty may be done to reduce maxillary molar height, sometimes coupled with endodontic treatment and crown lengthening. Forced orthodontic intrusion may also be attempted in certain cases.[13] However, patient compliance, root resorption, and extrusion of anchorage teeth are the disadvantages of carrying out orthodontic intrusion.[14] Moreover, carrying out maxillary segmental osteotomy decreases the treatment time as compared with orthodontic intrusion.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Ataoglu H, Kucukkolbasi H, Ataoglu T. Posterior segmental osteotomy of maxillary edentulous ridge: An alternative to vertical reduction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;31:558-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Rosen PS, Forman D. The role of orthognathic surgery in the treatment of severe dentoalveolar extrusion. J Am Dent Assoc 1999;130:1619-22.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Basa S, Varol A, Sener ID, Sertgoz A. Posterior maxillary segmental osteotomy for restoring the mandible with dental implants: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:340-3.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Baeg S, On S, Lee J, Song S. Posterior maxillary segmental osteotomy for management of insufficient intermaxillary vertical space and intermolar width discrepancy: A case report. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;38:28.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Akkas I, Toptas O, Akpinar YZ, Ozan F. Segmental alveolar osteotomy by palatal approach to correct excessive angulated dental implants in anterior and posterior maxilla. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9:ZD03-5.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Hibi H, Ueda M. Occlusal restoration with surgical interventions-osteotomy, implant surgery, and tooth transplantation: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:236-40.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Papaspyridakos P, Ostuni A, Han C, Lal K. Posterior maxillary segmental osteotomy for the implant reconstruction of a vertically deficient ridge: A 3-year clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2013;110:69-75.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Myung Rae K, Jai Woo S. A case of posterior maxillary segmental osteotomy. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 1981;7:107-12.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Yang SI, Kim JY, Kim CS. A case report of surgical correction of unilateral posterior maxillary dentoalveolar hyperplasia by one-step posterior maxillary segmental osteotomy. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 1994;20:67-73.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Kim SG. Inadequate implant angulation resulting from oroantral fistula: Case report. Implant Dent 2001;10:103-7.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Hokett SD, Hoen MM. Inflammatory cervical root resorption following segmental orthognathic surgery. A case report. J Periodontol 1998;69:219-26.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Meningaud JP, Pitak-Arnnop P, Corcos L, Bertrand JC. Posterior maxillary segmental osteotomy for mandibular implants placement: Case report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;102:e1-3.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Al-Zubair NM. Orthodontic intrusion: A contemporary review. J Orthop Res 2014;2:118.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Topkara A, Karaman AI, Kau CH. Apical root resorption caused by orthodontic forces: A brief review and a long-term observation. Eur J Dent 2012;6:445-53.  Back to cited text no. 14
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Case Report
   Discussion
    References
    Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed438    
    Printed16    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded38    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal