Planning implant rehabilitations in osteoporotic patients. What should we know?

Elena Calciolari
Fig. 1: A 63-year-old woman presented with a hopeless lower left first molar

Table of Contents

The burden of osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a common skeletal disease characterized by reduced bone mineral density (BMD) and changes in the microarchitectural structure of bones which predispose patients to an increased risk of fractures. It is often referred to as a “silent disease” as many people become aware they have osteoporosis only after a fracture occurs.

The gold standard for the diagnosis of osteoporosis is related to the measurement of BMD through dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at the hip and lumbar spine. In particular, BMD is defined in relation to a T-score that describes the number of standard deviations by which the BMD recorded differs from the mean value expected in young healthy individuals. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines osteoporosis as a T-score 2.5 or more below the young female adult mean (Kanis et al., 2008), while osteopenia (i.e., reduced BMD) corresponds to a T-score between -1 and -2.5 (Table 1).

WHO Operational Definition of Osteoporosis based on BMD measurement

ClassificationT score
Normal≥-1
Osteopenia-1<T<-2.5
Osteoporosis≤-2.5
Severe or established oteoporosis≤-2.5 + one or more fractures
Table 1: WHO operational definition of osteoporosis based on BMD assessment with DXA and T-score evaluation

In 2010 it was estimated that osteoporosis had a prevalence of 27.6 million in Europe (22 million women and 5.6 million men), with 3.5 million new fragility fractures recorded. These data are expected to significantly increase in the future (+23% by 2025), owing to population growth and ageing (Hernlund et al., 2013). The prevalence of osteoporosis is the highest in Caucasians, as approximately one in two Caucasian women and one in five men are expected to experience an osteoporosis-related fracture in their lifetime. Women after menopause are particularly at risk of developing osteoporosis, due to the negative impact that oestrogen withdrawal has on bone metabolism.

Considering the increase in life expectancy, the number of osteoporotic patients requiring dental care, including implant rehabilitations, is expected to significantly rise in the coming years and therefore it is important for dentists to be aware of any possible detrimental effect of osteoporosis (and its medications) on the jawbones in order to reduce the incidence of complications and improve the success of dental treatments in this group of patients.

Does osteoporosis affect the jawbones?

It is plausible to think that osteoporosis-induced systemic bone loss may also include bone loss at the jaws, as part of the skeleton. As a matter of fact, several studies found a positive correlation between BMD measured at different skeletal sites and jawbone density (Erdogan et al., 2009, Drozdzowska et al., 2002, Jonasson et al., 2001, Makker et al., 2012, Takaishi et al., 2005, Vishwanath et al., 2011, Horner et al., 1996, Esfahanizadeh et al., 2013), with increased alveolar bone resorption in osteoporotic versus non-osteoporotic edentulous patients (Hirai et al., 1993, Singhal et al., 2012). However, other studies did not confirm these findings, thus making the available evidence uncertain.

One of the biggest limitations standing in the way of making more robust conclusions is the fact that we lack a standardized and accurate technique to measure jawbone density, since a DXA software for jawbones does not exist (Calciolari et al., 2015b). Currently, quantitative computed tomography remains the most reliable pre-surgical assessment of jaw BMD, and one study suggested Hounsfield unit (HU) cut-offs for identifying osteoporotic patients in the dental practice (460 HU for spine T-score) (Chai et al., 2014).

Despite their controversial results, in the past 30 years many studies have claimed a role for the dentist in the early diagnosis of osteoporosis by measuring specific quantitative/qualitative indices on dental panoramic radiographs (OPGs). The idea is that, since OPGs are frequent exams available in dental practices and often performed during check-ups or in association with dental treatments, the dentist could use them to intercept patients at risk of osteoporosis and refer them to a specialist early on, before any fractures take place (Calciolari et al., 2015a). At the moment, the identification of patients at risk of osteoporosis through OPGs is at an experimental/research level, but the results seem promising and it is possible that in the near future and with the help of automatic and computer-based systems this might become a solid reality.

Can we place dental implants safely in osteoporotic patients?

It is biologically plausible that the alterations in bone metabolism associated with osteoporosis (namely increased bone resorption and reduced bone density) can also impair bone healing around dental implants and negatively affect their osseointegration.

While studies in animals overall suggest that osteoporosis is associated with reduced bone-to-implant contact and reduced mechanical properties (Dereka et al., 2018), the results of prospective controlled studies indicate similar survival and success rates for implants placed in healthy and in osteoporotic patients (Bornstein et al., 2009a, de Medeiros et al., 2018). As such, osteoporosis should not currently be considered as a contraindication for implant placement. Nevertheless, clinicians might want to follow some recommendations based more on expert opinion rather than solid scientific evidence, with the aim to improve the predictability of implant-related outcomes when dealing with osteoporotic patients.

In particular, clinicians should carefully assess and try to check for concomitant risk factors that can affect bone metabolism and bone density (such as deficiencies of vitamin D and calcium, smoking, alcohol abuse) as well as for the presence of systemic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, with a recognized impact on bone tissue. It is also suggested to consider osteoporotic bone as equivalent to type IV in the Lekholm and Zarb classification, thus porous and on average of poor quality. Therefore, when preparing the implant site, clinicians might take into consideration longer healing periods before sitting the prosthesis, paying particularly attention on the insertion torque analysis, especially if immediate loading is considered. Resonance frequency analysis might also be a useful tool to assess implant stability before loading, although limited evidence is available on the correlation between skeletal osteoporosis and dental implant stability (Merheb et al., 2016).

A rapidly growing research field is now related to the use of implant surfaces that can be bioactivated, drug loaded or chemically modified to enhance osseointegration and bone formation, especially in compromised healing conditions, such as osteoporosis.

For instance, it is well documented that hydrophilic micro-rough titanium implants can accelerate the initial stages of osseointegration by promoting interactions with osteogenic cells, biological fluids and tissues and by promoting osteoblast differentiation (Bornstein et al., 2008, Buser et al., 2004, Donos et al., 2011). Clinical trials have acknowledged the successful use of these modified implant surfaces for immediate and early loading (up to 3 weeks after implant placement) and in challenging anatomical situations (such as type IV bone) (Morton et al., 2010, Bornstein et al., 2009b, Zollner et al., 2008, Roccuzzo and Wilson, 2009), so it is likely that these modified surfaces might also be indicated in osteoporotic patients to ensure more predictable outcomes, although no clinical studies have been published in this respect so far.

What is the effect of osteoporosis medications on the success and survival of dental implants?

There are two categories of osteoporosis medication: antiresorptive (anticatabolic) and anabolic agents (Table 2). Antiresorptive medications act by reducing the number and activity of osteoclasts and therefore slowing down bone turnover, while anabolic medications increase the frequency of bone remodelling and promote bone formation.

FDA-approved medications for osteoporosis

AntiresorptiveAlendronate (Fosamax, Fosamax Plus D)
Risedronate (Actonel, Actonel with calcium)
Ibandronate (Boniva)
Zoledronic acid (Reclast)
Oestrogen therapy/hormone therapy
Raloxifene (Evista)
Denosumab (Prolia)
Bazedoxifene and estrogen (Duavee)
Calcitonin salmon (Fortical, Miacalcin)
AnabolicTeriparatide (Forteo)
Abaloparatide (Tymlos)
Romosuzumab (Evenity)
Table 2: FDA-approved medications for osteoporosis

Bisphosphonates (BPs), and in particular alendronate, are still the most commonly prescribed antiresorptive medications for osteoporosis and represent the gold standard for fracture prevention. They can be administered either orally (more frequently) or intravenously and they are stored in bones for decades due to their strong affinity for hydroxyapatite.

Denosumab is a human monoclonal antibody against the receptor activator of the nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL) protein and therefore has an inhibitory effect on osteoclast maturation, activation and survival. It is administered as a single subcutaneous injection once every 6 months. Remarkably, denosumab presents with an anti-fracture activity similar to zoledronic acid, but it does not have residual effects beyond 6 months.

Since antiresorptive medications inhibit the formation and activation of osteoclasts and induce their apoptosis, thus reducing bone turnover, they may potentially reduce the regenerative capacity of bone around dental implants, thus negatively affecting the osseointegration process. At the same time, the slower osseous remodelling allows more time for secondary mineralization, which leads to an increase in bone density and stiffness, together with an increase in bone microdamage.

Although the available clinical evidence comes mainly from retrospective and case series studies, it seems that systemic BPs do not increase implant failure or peri-implant marginal bone loss, as also reported at the 6th ITI Consensus Conference (Chappuis et al., 2018). The number of dental implants that must be exposed to BPs in order to cause a single implant failure which otherwise would not have occurred (“number needed to harm”) was reported to be 509 dental implants (Ata-Ali et al., 2014).There is almost no information available on the possible effect on implant therapy of denosumab, nor on the success or safety of bone grafting procedures in patients taking antiresorptive medications.

Although antiresorptive medications do not seem to significantly reduce implant success and survival, this does not mean that osteoporotic patients taking them are to be considered complication-free. One of the most serious (although uncommon) complication that has been associated with the use of antiresorptive medications is the development of osteonecrosis of the jaws (ONJ). ONJ presents as an area of exposed bone that does not heal spontaneously within 8 weeks and it is usually associated with pain (Ruggiero et al., 2014).

Only limited clinical studies have tried to address the risk of ONJ subsequent to implant placement, but it is recommended to consider it comparable to the one associated with a tooth extraction. The incidence of BP-associated ONJ described in the literature ranges from 0.001% to 0.01%, with highest levels for long-term treatments, up to 0.2% in patients with >4 years exposure (Lo et al., 2010). Remarkably,ONJs tend to occur more frequently in patients taking nitrogen-containing BPs (such as zoledronic acid and pamidronate) and intravenous bisphosphonates. Moreover, the literature suggests that patients who undergo surgical trauma during the installation of dental implants may be more susceptible to the development of ONJs (Mendes et al., 2019).

In patients taking denosumab, the risk of developing ONJ can be significantly reduced by planning implant placement after 6 months from the injection (before a new dose is delivered), since this medication does not have residual effects beyond 6 months.

In conclusion, which precautions should clinicians put in place when dealing with osteoporotic patients being treated with antiresorptive medications and requiring an implant-supported rehabilitation? Although a small percentage of patients receiving antiresorptive medications develop ONJ spontaneously, most affected patients develop this complication after dentoalveolar surgeries. Therefore, if systemic conditions allow, initiation of antiresorptive therapy should be delayed until dental health is optimized and all invasive surgeries (including implant surgeries) have been performed. In this respect, close collaboration between dentists and physicians is needed to stress the importance of optimizing dental health throughout this medication-free period. In patients already under treatment, implant placement is not contraindicated, but patients should be adequately informed of the very small risk (<1%) of compromised bone healing.

In order to further reduce the incidence of ONJs, the clinician should firstly identify and address comorbidities and risk factors that may increase the possibility of this serious complication developing, such as smoking, oral mucosal irritations associated with poorly fitting dentures, periodontitis, treatment with corticosteroids and diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, particular care should be taken to minimize surgical trauma, to use abundant irrigation when drilling the bone and to suture in order to promote soft tissue closure for primary intention.

Although there is very limited evidence regarding the effect of treatment duration, the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons suggested that for patients taking BPs for more than 4 years – if systemic conditions permit – a drug holiday might be considered for at least 2 months before and 3 months after elective invasive oral surgeries to reduce the risk of ONJ (Ruggiero et al., 2014). For patients who have taken oral BPs for less than 4 years and have no clinical risk factors, no alteration or delay in the planned surgery is deemed necessary.

Finally, a regular recall schedule and reinforcement of oral hygiene steps should be particularly stressed in this category of patients. Herein, a case of successful and complication-free management of single implant rehabilitation in a 63-year-old, osteoporotic woman (T-score -2.7 at the hip and lumbar spine) in treatment with denosumab and vitamin D for 2 years is presented (Figs 1 and 2). Three months after atraumatic extraction of lower left six (hopeless due to root fracture), it was decided to rehabilitate the edentulous site with an implant with a hydrophilic micro-rough surface with the aim of enhancing osseointegration. In order to reduce the risk of developing ONJ, implant placement was planned just before the 6-monthly injection of denosumab and under antibiotic coverage. Healing was uneventful and the implant was successfully loaded eight weeks after implant placement.

Fig. 1: A 63-year-old woman presented with a hopeless lower left first molar (a). The tooth was atraumatically extracted, photo b shows the healed edentulous area 3 months post-extraction
Fig. 1: A 63-year-old woman presented with a hopeless lower left first molar (a). The tooth was atraumatically extracted, photo b shows the healed edentulous area 3 months post-extraction
Fig. 2: An implant with a hydrophilic micro-rough surface was placed in the edentulous site of the lower left first molar (a, b, c, d). Loading was performed 8 weeks after unsubmerged healing (e). At 2 years post-loading, the implant showed a pleasant aesthetic outcome and stable radiographic peri-implant bone levels (f, g, h) [Surgery performed by Dr. Nikos Mardas]
Fig. 2: An implant with a hydrophilic micro-rough surface was placed in the edentulous site of the lower left first molar (a, b, c, d). Loading was performed 8 weeks after unsubmerged healing (e). At 2 years post-loading, the implant showed a pleasant aesthetic outcome and stable radiographic peri-implant bone levels (f, g, h) [Surgery performed by Dr. Nikos Mardas]

Authors

Elena Calciolari_Portrait
Elena Calciolari
Elena Calciolari, DDS, MS(Perio), PhD, works as a Senior Clinical Lecturer in the Centre for Oral Clinical Research at Queen Mary University of London as well as at University of Parma. Her main research interests are bone regeneration and the effect of systemic diseases on the oral cavity. She graduated from the University of Parma and completed a Master in Periodontology at the University of Siena in 2012. In the same year she won a scholarship from the Italian Society of Periodontology to support her PhD on bone regeneration at the UCL Eastman Dental Institute of London. She has taken part in past European Federation of Periodontology workshops, thus contributing to the development of the new treatment guidelines for periodontal diseases and their adoption by the British Society of Periodontology. Dr. Calciolari received several international awards, including the Goldman award for clinical research by the Italian Society of Periodontology (2014) and the L’Oréal-UNESCO for women in science award (2017). In 2018 she received the IADR Women in Science Distinguished Research Award and in 2021 she was the recipient of the President’s prize from the British Society for Oral and Dental Research.

Ata-Ali, J., Ata-Ali, F., Penarrocha-Oltra, D. & Galindo-Moreno, P. (2014) What is the impact of bisphosphonate therapy upon dental implant survival? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. doi:10.1111/clr.12526.

Bornstein, M. M., Cionca, N. & Mombelli, A. (2009a) Systemic conditions and treatments as risks for implant therapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24 Suppl, 12-27.

Bornstein, M. M., Hart, C. N., Halbritter, S. A., Morton, D. & Buser, D. (2009b) Early loading of nonsubmerged titanium implants with a chemically modified sand-blasted and acid-etched surface: 6-month results of a prospective case series study in the posterior mandible focusing on peri-implant crestal bone changes and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 11, 338-347. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00148.x.

Bornstein, M. M., Valderrama, P., Jones, A. A., Wilson, T. G., Seibl, R. & Cochran, D. L. (2008) Bone apposition around two different sandblasted and acid-etched titanium implant surfaces: a histomorphometric study in canine mandibles. Clin Oral Implants Res 19, 233-241. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01473.x.

Buser, D., Broggini, N., Wieland, M., Schenk, R. K., Denzer, A. J., Cochran, D. L., Hoffmann, B., Lussi, A. & Steinemann, S. G. (2004) Enhanced bone apposition to a chemically modified SLA titanium surface. J Dent Res 83, 529-533.

Calciolari, E., Donos, N., Park, J. C., Petrie, A. & Mardas, N. (2015a) Panoramic measures for oral bone mass in detecting osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 94, 17S-27S. doi:10.1177/0022034514554949.

Calciolari, E., Donos, N., Park, J. C., Petrie, A. & Mardas, N. (2015b) A systematic review on the correlation between skeletal and jawbone mineral density in osteoporotic subjects. Clin Oral Implants Res. doi:10.1111/clr.12597.

Chai, J., Chau, A. C., Chu, F. C. & Chow, T. W. (2014) Diagnostic performance of mandibular bone density measurements in assessing osteoporotic status. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29, 667-674. doi:10.11607/jomi.3354.

Chappuis, V., Avila-Ortiz, G., Araujo, M. G. & Monje, A. (2018) Medication-related dental implant failure: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 29 Suppl 16, 55-68. doi:10.1111/clr.13137.

de Medeiros, F., Kudo, G. A. H., Leme, B. G., Saraiva, P. P., Verri, F. R., Honorio, H. M., Pellizzer, E. P. & Santiago Junior, J. F. (2018) Dental implants in patients with osteoporosis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 47, 480-491. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2017.05.021.

Dereka, X., Calciolari, E., Donos, N. & Mardas, N. (2018) Osseointegration in osteoporotic-like condition: A systematic review of preclinical studies. J Periodontal Res 53, 933-940. doi:10.1111/jre.12566.

Donos, N., Hamlet, S., Lang, N. P., Salvi, G. E., Huynh-Ba, G., Bosshardt, D. D. & Ivanovski, S. (2011) Gene expression profile of osseointegration of a hydrophilic compared with a hydrophobic microrough implant surface. Clinical Oral Implants Research 22, 365-372. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02113.x.

Drozdzowska, B., Pluskiewicz, W. & Tarnawska, B. (2002) Panoramic-based mandibular indices in relation to mandibular bone mineral density and skeletal status assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and quantitative ultrasound. Dento maxillo facial radiology 31, 361-367.

Erdogan, O., Incki, K. K., Benlidayi, M. E., Seydaoglu, G. & Kelekci, S. (2009) Dental and radiographic findings as predictors of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Geriatrics & gerontology international 9, 155-164. doi:10.1111/j.1447-0594.2009.00518.x.

Esfahanizadeh, N., Davaie, S., Rokn, A. R., Daneshparvar, H. R., Bayat, N., Khondi, N., Ajvadi, S. & Ghandi, M. (2013) Correlation between bone mineral density of jaws and skeletal sites in an Iranian population using dual X-ray energy absorptiometry. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 10, 460-466.

Hernlund, E., Svedbom, A., Ivergard, M., Compston, J., Cooper, C., Stenmark, J., McCloskey, E. V., Jonsson, B. & Kanis, J. A. (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Archives of osteoporosis 8, 136. doi:10.1007/s11657-013-0136-1.

Hirai, T., Ishijima, T., Hashikawa, Y. & Yajima, T. (1993) Osteoporosis and reduction of residual ridge in edentulous patients. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 69, 49-56.

Horner, K., Devlin, H., Alsop, C. W., Hodgkinson, I. M. & Adams, J. E. (1996) Mandibular bone mineral density as a predictor of skeletal osteoporosis. The British journal of radiology 69, 1019-1025.

Jonasson, G., Bankvall, G. & Kiliaridis, S. (2001) Estimation of skeletal bone mineral density by means of the trabecular pattern of the alveolar bone, its interdental thickness, and the bone mass of the mandible. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics 92, 346-352.

Kanis, J. A., Burlet, N., Cooper, C., Delmas, P. D., Reginster, J. Y., Borgstrom, F. & Rizzoli, R. (2008) European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA 19, 399-428. doi:10.1007/s00198-008-0560-z.

Lo, J. C., O’Ryan, F. S., Gordon, N. P., Yang, J., Hui, R. L., Martin, D., Hutchinson, M., Lathon, P. V., Sanchez, G., Silver, P., Chandra, M., McCloskey, C. A., Staffa, J. A., Willy, M., Selby, J. V., Go, A. S. & Predicting Risk of Osteonecrosis of the Jaw with Oral Bisphosphonate Exposure, I. (2010) Prevalence of osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with oral bisphosphonate exposure. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68, 243-253. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2009.03.050.

Makker, A., Singh, M. M., Mishra, G., Singh, B. P., Jain, G. K. & Jadhav, S. (2012) Relationship between bone turnover biomarkers, mandibular bone mineral density, and systemic skeletal bone mineral density in premenopausal and postmenopausal Indian women. Menopause 19, 642-649. doi:10.1097/gme.0b013e31823dbbf7.

Mendes, V., Dos Santos, G. O., Calasans-Maia, M. D., Granjeiro, J. M. & Moraschini, V. (2019) Impact of bisphosphonate therapy on dental implant outcomes: An overview of systematic review evidence. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 48, 373-381. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2018.09.006.

Merheb, J., Temmerman, A., Rasmusson, L., Kubler, A., Thor, A. & Quirynen, M. (2016) Influence of Skeletal and Local Bone Density on Dental Implant Stability in Patients with Osteoporosis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 18, 253-260. doi:10.1111/cid.12290.

Morton, D., Bornstein, M. M., Wittneben, J. G., Martin, W. C., Ruskin, J. D., Hart, C. N. & Buser, D. (2010) Early loading after 21 days of healing of nonsubmerged titanium implants with a chemically modified sandblasted and acid-etched surface: two-year results of a prospective two-center study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 12, 9-17. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00204.x.

Roccuzzo, M. & Wilson, T. G., Jr. (2009) A prospective study of 3 weeks’ loading of chemically modified titanium implants in the maxillary molar region: 1-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24, 65-72.

Ruggiero, S. L., Dodson, T. B., Fantasia, J., Goodday, R., Aghaloo, T., Mehrotra, B., O’Ryan, F., American Association of, O. & Maxillofacial, S. (2014) American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons position paper on medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw–2014 update. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery: official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 72, 1938-1956. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2014.04.031.

Singhal, S., Chand, P., Singh, B. P., Singh, S. V., Rao, J., Shankar, R. & Kumar, S. (2012) The effect of osteoporosis on residual ridge resorption and masticatory performance in denture wearers. Gerodontology 29, e1059-1066. doi:10.1111/j.1741-2358.2011.00610.x.

Takaishi, Y., Okamoto, Y., Ikeo, T., Morii, H., Takeda, M., Hide, K., Arai, T. & Nonaka, K. (2005) Correlations between periodontitis and loss of mandibular bone in relation to systemic bone changes in postmenopausal Japanese women. Osteoporosis international: a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA 16, 1875-1882. doi:10.1007/s00198-005-1955-8.

Vishwanath, S. B., Kumar, V., Kumar, S., Shashikumar, P., Shashikumar, Y. & Patel, P. V. (2011) Correlation of periodontal status and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: a digital radiographic and quantitative ultrasound study. Indian Journal of Dental Research 22, 270-276. doi:10.4103/0970-9290.84303.

Zollner, A., Ganeles, J., Korostoff, J., Guerra, F., Krafft, T. & Bragger, U. (2008) Immediate and early non-occlusal loading of Straumann implants with a chemically modified surface (SLActive) in the posterior mandible and maxilla: interim results from a prospective multicenter randomized-controlled study. Clin Oral Implants Res 19, 442-450. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01517.x.

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp
Fig 2: Post operative OPG for implant placed in the region of 24 utilizing transcrestal technique without graft material
Clinical insights

Overview of sinus floor elevation procedure in implant dentistry – Part 2

Introduction Insufficient bone volume is a common problem faced during the rehabilitation of the edentulous posterior maxilla with implant-supported prostheses. The bone available for implant placement in the posterior maxillat may be limited by the pneumatization of the maxillary sinus following tooth loss, resulting in unfavorable alveolar ridge dimensions. In

Read More »
seasons greetings
News

Season’s Greetings

We are approaching the end of another mixed year. The difficult times are continuing with the ongoing pandemic and countries all over in different phases of management and impact: some acute, some doing well, some facing fourth and even fifth waves. As a profession, the tweaking of our standard dental

Read More »