Case atlas — every figure of every case the hour shows

16 published cases · 119 figures, in the order the authors published them. Click any figure to open it full size. Back to the deck in the other tab.

Park 2023

Lateral Peri-Implantitis: Successful Management via Guided Bone Regeneration at Mandibular First Molar Implant Medicina 2023 doi:10.3390/medicina59091691

Park et al. 2023. Reproduced under CC BY 4.0.

periapical lesion distal root tooth observed
Figure 1(a) A periapical lesion on the distal root of tooth #30 was observed. The mesial root was removed 3 years ago; (b) panoramic radiograph after 4 months of tooth extraction. A wide bone defect
clinical findings gbr post 5 months site
Figure 2(a) Clinical findings of GBR post-5 months. The GBR site was not exposed; (b) uncovering was performed 5 months post-GBR procedure. Bone regeneration was well performed in the crestal portion of the implant–abutment junction. Of the buccal labial augmentation sites, only the mesial side showed a yellowish hue, and bone sounding with a periodontal probe presented with a soft consistency (black arrow); (c) the final prosthesis was inserted 1 month post-uncovering
there gingival bleeding swelling present months
Figure 3(a) There is gingival bleeding and swelling present 26 months after lateral bone augmen-tation. The prosthesis was disconnected by removing the internal screw through a screw channel located on the occlusal table; (b) after buccal flap reflection, the granulation tissue extended from the GBR site and penetrated up to the implant surface; (c) bone regeneration at the implant–abutment junction was well performed. The buccal implant body was exposed. Peri-implant bone defect occurred on the mesial side; (d) decontamination was performed on the exposed implant body using a titanium brush; (e) tetracycline HCl was mixed with saline and applied to the exposed implant surface; (f) after sufficient saline irrigation, a synthetic bone graft substitute was filled; (g) a resorbable collagen membrane was adapted to cover the bone graft site; (h) flap closure; (i) the previous prosthesis was reinserted following 1 month
removed specimen measuring left side area
Figure 4(a) Removed specimen measuring 13 × 11 mm. The left side is the area in contact with the implant and the right side is the area subjected to bone decortication; (b) in the decalcified H–E stained specimen, the area in contact with the implant is the granulation tissue containing a large amount of inflammatory cells; (c) in the undecalcified H–E stain specimen, graft particles did not contact the implant body; (d) osteoclasts appeared around the graft particle (black arrow); (e) abundant inflammatory cells in the granulation tissue
panoramic radiograph lower right first molar
Figure 5Panoramic radiograph lower right first molar region and CBCT images of the procedure: (a) the prosthesis was delivered 6 months post-implant placement; (b) 26 months after prosthesis delivery, an ovoid-type bone resorption was observed around the implant; (c) panoramic radiograph images taken 20 months after surgical re-entry showed no bone resorption around the implant; (d) in the cross-sectional image of the CBCT scan taken before the surgical re-entry, broad bone resorption was observed on the buccal side of the implant; (e) there was no evidence of bone resorption around the implant in the cross-sectional image of the CBCT scan 20 months after surgical re-entry