Article

Mandibular fractures associated with endosteal implants.

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 10/2009; 13(4):231-8. DOI: 10.1007/s10006-009-0171-7
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to report four cases of mandibular fractures associated with endosteal implants and to discuss prevention and treatment of these types of fractures.
To evaluate whether the patient's anatomy allows insertion of implants, radiological exams that demonstrate the height and the labial-lingual width are needed. To reduce the potential fracture problem, the mandible can be restrengthened with bone grafting techniques. The treatment of a fracture in an atrophic mandible is always a challenge because of the diminished central blood supply, the depressed vitality of the bone, and the dependence on the periosteal blood supply. The basic principles in fracture treatment are reduction and immobilization of the fractured site for restoration of form and function.
If implants are placed in severe atrophic mandible, iatrogenic fracture of the mandible may occur during or after implant surgery because implant placement weakens the already-compromised mandible. A few millimeters of cortical bone should remain on both the labial and the lingual sites after the hole for insertion of an implant has been drilled. A 3-D surgical planning should be recommended at least in severe atrophic mandibles in order to prevent a severe reduction of bone tissue.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
78 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current approach to the evaluation and treatment of military casualties in the Global War on Terror is informed by medical experience from prior conflicts and combat encounters from the last 10 years. In an effort to standardize the care provided to military casualties in the ongoing conflicts, the Department of Defense (DoD) has published Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) that deal specifically with the combat casualty sustaining a spinal injury. However, the combat experience with spine injuries in the present conflicts remains incompletely described. To describe the CPGs for the care of the combat casualty with suspected spine injuries and discuss them in light of the published military experience with combat-related spinal trauma. Literature review. A literature review was conducted regarding published works that discussed the incidence, epidemiology, and management of combat-related spinal trauma. The CPGs, established by the DoD, are discussed in light of actual military experiences with spine trauma, the present situation in the forward surgical teams and combat support hospitals treating casualties in theater, and recent publications in the field of spine surgery. In the conventional wars fought by the United States between 1950 and 1991 (Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I), the incidence of spine injuries remained close to 1% of all combat casualties. However, in the Global War on Terror, the enemy has relied on implements of asymmetric warfare, including sniper attacks, ambush, roadside bombs, and improvised explosive devices. The increase in explosive mechanisms of injury has elevated the number of soldiers exposed to blunt force trauma and, consequently, recent publications reported the highest incidence of combat-related spinal injuries in American military history. Wounded soldiers are expeditiously evacuated through the echelons of care but typically do not receive surgical management in theater. The current CPGs for the care of soldiers with combat-related spinal injuries should be re-examined in light of data regarding the increasing number of spine injuries, new injury patterns, such as lumbosacral dissociation and low lumbar burst fractures, and recent reports within the field of spine surgery as a whole. American and coalition forces are sustaining the highest spine combat casualty rates in recorded history and previously unseen injuries are being encountered with increased frequency. While the CPGs provide useful direction in terms of the evaluation and management of combat casualties with spine injuries, such recommendations may warrant periodic re-evaluation in light of recent combat experiences and evolving scientific evidence within the spine literature.
    The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society 06/2011; 12(9):817-23. · 2.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pathological mandibular fractures are rare, accounting for fewer than 2% of all fractures of the mandible. They could be defined as fractures that occur in regions where bone has been weakened by an underlying pathological process. Pathological fractures usually may follow surgical interventions such as third molar removal or implant placement, result from regions of osteomyelitis, osteoradionecrosis, and bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw, occur because of idiopathic reasons or be facilitated by cystic lesions, benign, malignant, or metastatic tumors. Pathological mandibular fractures may be challenging to treat because of their different etiology and peculiar local and general conditions, often requiring a more rigid fixation. In patients with poor medical conditions, simpler and more limited options may be preferred.
    Dental Traumatology 01/2013; · 1.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pathologic fractures of the mandible can occur for many reasons including osteoradionecrosis, osteomyelitis, malignancy and cyst. Pathologic fractures are difficult to treat because management is needed not only for the fractures of the mandible but also the underlying disease the is weakening the bone. Additionally, the diseased mandible in the pathologic fracture frequently has abnormal bone healing capacity. We experienced three cases of pathologic fractures of the mandible resulting from cyst, malignancy and osteomyelitis. The treatment of these cases was complicated and time-consuming. Therefore, we present our three cases and discuss the management of pathologic fractures of the mandible.
    Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 01/2011; 33(6).