背景:虽然鼻窝和鼻腭管被认为是在美学领域立即植入的局限性,鼻尖管(CS)及其分支在很大程度上被忽视。忽视这种解剖结构会导致感官问题,疼痛,植入失败强调了细致的术前评估和计划以降低风险并确保植入成功的必要性。此案例强调需要进行全面的术前评估和精确的计划,以最大程度地减少这些并发症,并确保在这种情况下成功植入。
结果:一名41岁有牙根穿孔和牙根外部吸收史的女性被转诊为种植牙。经过临床评估和计算机断层扫描,确定存在CS的副管。经过精心的计划,以避免植入物与此结构接触,进行了山脊保存。六个月后,在引导截骨术后成功放置植入物.经过36个月的随访,该病例证明了临床和影像学的稳定性。
结论:正确的诊断和计划,在一个多学科的团队中,可以导致成功的植入物放置在具有解剖学变异的具有挑战性的部位。这项研究,根据我们的知识,代表了在美学区域中存在CS的情况下首次提出替代治疗方法。
结论:为什么这个病例是新的信息?这个病例强调了彻底的术前评估对减轻与CS相关的潜在并发症的重要性。这是第一个,根据我们的知识,在美学区域存在这种解剖变异的情况下,提出一种替代治疗方法。在这种情况下,成功管理的关键是什么?全面的术前评估,精确规划,详细的CBCT评估,以识别CS,在手术干预期间仔细考虑其解剖结构,了解组织重建的局限性,和精确的临床策略,以尽量减少相关的并发症。在这种情况下,成功的主要限制是什么?需要将植入物定位在距CS有安全裕度的位置,导致植入物定位导致颊骨板开窗,防止其重建由于骨包膜的设计,导致牙龈边缘与对侧牙齿相比不一致,由于根部较短,因此无法进一步延长牙冠。
BACKGROUND: While the nasal fossa and nasopalatine canal are recognized limitations for immediate implants in esthetic areas, the canalis sinuosus (CS) and its branches have been largely overlooked. Neglecting this anatomy can lead to sensory issues, pain, and implant failure underscores the necessity of meticulous pre-surgical assessment and planning to mitigate risks and ensure implant success. This
case highlights the need for comprehensive pre-surgical evaluation and precise planning to minimize these complications and ensure successful implant outcomes in this scenario.
RESULTS: A 41-year-old woman with a history of root perforation and external root resorption was referred for dental implant placement. Following clinical evaluation and computed tomography, the presence of an accessory canal of the CS was identified. After meticulous planning to avoid implant contact with this structure, ridge preservation was performed. After 6 months, the implant was successfully placed following guided osteotomy. The
case demonstrates clinical and radiographic stability after 36 months of follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: The correct diagnosis and planning, within a multidisciplinary team, can lead to successful implant placement in a challenging site with an anatomical variation. This study, to our knowledge, represents the first to propose an alternative treatment approach in the presence of CS in an esthetic region.
CONCLUSIONS: Why is this
case new information? This case emphasizes the importance of thorough pre-surgical evaluation to mitigate potential complications related to the CS. It is the first, to our knowledge, to propose an alternative treatment approach in the presence of this anatomical variation in an esthetic region. What are the keys to successful management in this
case? Comprehensive pre-surgical evaluation, precise planning with detailed CBCT assessment to identify the CS, careful consideration of its anatomy during surgical intervention, knowledge of the limitations of tissue reconstructions, and precise clinical strategies to minimize associated complications. What are the primary limitations to success in this
case? The need to position the implant with a safety margin from the CS led to implant positioning resulting in fenestration of the buccal bone plate, preventing its reconstruction due to the bone envelope\'s design, resulting in a discrepant gingival margin compared to the contralateral tooth, which did not allow for further crown lengthening due to a rather short root.