Home | About us | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Search | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact us |  Login 
National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery
 
Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Users Online: 186
 


 
Table of Contents
CASE REPORT
Year : 2011  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 63-65  

Rehablitation of mandibular fracture with anterior teeth loss


Department of Prosthodontics, Sardar Patel Post Graduate Institute of Dental and Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Date of Web Publication10-Oct-2011

Correspondence Address:
Meenakshi Singh
C/o Tomar Dental Care Centre; D-3/1, Mahavir Enclave, Palam Dabri Road, New Delhi -110045
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0975-5950.85856

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

We report here on rehabilitating a case with mandibular fracture and lower anterior teeth loss. Three double-staged implants were placed in the lower anterior region; in an attempt to rehabilitate the condition of five missing lower teeth, two natural teeth were prepared to act as natural abutments. Teeth implant-supported prosthesis was fabricated. Patient with a right mandibular fracture and loss of lower anterior missing teeth was successfully rehabilitated with teeth implant-supported prosthesis and titanium bony plates.

Keywords: Mandibular fracture, titanium bone plates, two-staged implants, FP-3 prosthesis, oral rehabilitation


How to cite this article:
Singh M, Singh A, Rajpal J, Gupta K K, Singh V. Rehablitation of mandibular fracture with anterior teeth loss. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2011;2:63-5

How to cite this URL:
Singh M, Singh A, Rajpal J, Gupta K K, Singh V. Rehablitation of mandibular fracture with anterior teeth loss. Natl J Maxillofac Surg [serial online] 2011 [cited 2019 Sep 20];2:63-5. Available from: http://www.njms.in/text.asp?2011/2/1/63/85856


   Introduction Top


It is not uncommon to come across patients who have undergone trauma and had mandibular fractures with loss of one or several teeth. These patients often desire a "fixed" treatment rather than removable dentures, to feel normal and to overcome the psychological trauma they have been through. The management of such patients often needs careful evaluation, procedure and techniques, with implant-supported prosthesis being the best possible treatment modality. The purpose of this study was to restore a mandibular anterior arch with implant teeth-supported prosthesis in a patient with treated fractured mandible.


   Case Report Top


A 60-year-old male patient visited the Outpatient Department of Prosthodontics, SPPGIDMS, Lucknow, India. History of the patient revealed that he had trauma 2 years back with the right side mandibular body fracture and loss of lower anterior teeth. There was no relevant medical history. The fracture was treated with open reduction, with titanium plating on right side of body of the mandible. The post-surgical examination revealed adequate mouth opening, normal occlusion and no deviation. The region had healed completely and the surgical treatment seemed satisfactory. The lower anterior alveolar ridge had resorbed to a great extent. All other teeth present were with no caries, good periodontal health and good oral hygiene.

The patient was educated and informed about the limitations of his treatment. An orthopantomgram (OPG) revealed well-accepted titanium plates on lower right side of the mandibular body with missing 31, 32, 41, 42, 43. The remaining teeth showed good periodontal condition with no bone loss [Figure 1]. Intra oral periapical radiograph (IOPA) radiographs in relation to 31, 32, 41, 42, 43 revealed bone loss up to 3 mm compared to the adjacent remaining teeth. A diagnostic impression of both the maxillary and mandibular arches was made. A radiographic and surgical stent was fabricated for evaluation of the implants [Figure 2]. Although one implant each for every missing tooth was the treatment of choice, the surgical site precluded the same and hence, three double-staged implants of 3.3 mm diameter and 15 mm length for 31, and 3.3 mm diameter and 13 mm length for 41 and 42 were placed under local anesthesia [Figure 3] and [Figure 4].
Figure 1: Preoperative view of the missing teeth after reduction of the fracture

Click here to view
Figure 2: Preparation of the surgical stent

Click here to view
Figure 3: Raising the flap

Click here to view
Figure 4: Placement of three implants in 31, 41, 42 regions at locations

Click here to view


The patient was put in antibiotics and analgesics for 5 days. After every aspect of the surgical region was found satisfactory, the patient was recalled after 3 months for the second stage of surgery. IOPA radiographs in the region revealed optimum osseointegration of the implants with the surrounding bone. Gingival formers were placed on the implant sites and patient was recalled after 15 days. Straight, prefabricated abutments were placed on the implants (UniTi) [Figure 5]. [1]
Figure 5: Placement of abutments

Click here to view


44 and 33 were selected as additional natural teeth abutments for FP-3 type of prosthesis [Figure 6].
Figure 6: Metal coping trial

Click here to view


The prosthesis was fabricated along with gingival (pink) porcelain to simulate the gingiva. Postinsertion visit by the patient showed good soft tissue response and optimum esthetics and functional rehabilitation [Figure 7] and [Figure 8].
Figure 7: Placement of FP-3 prosthesis (with gingival porcelain)

Click here to view
Figure 8: Postoperative OPG showing titanium plates and implant tooth-supported prosthesis

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Two titanium plates on the right side of the body of mandible restored the occlusion to a normal group function with favorable opposing occlusion apart from reducing the fracture. Three titanium impants were placed in the lower anterior region 31, 41, 42 as opposed to the preferred five implants, for each tooth, due to inadequacies in the surgical site. To replace the five missing teeth, two natural teeth, each on distal side of edentulous region, were prepared (44 and 33). Implant to tooth-supported bridge in relation to 31, 32, 33 and 41, 42, 43, 44 was fabricated keeping in mind that the use of natural teeth as abutment in combination with dental implant for support of fixed dental prosthesis can be endorsed in certain situations and used as a reliable therapy. [2],[3] The tooth implant-supported prosthesis has been reported to be an equally predictable treatment as the completely implant-supported prosthesis, concerning implant survival and loss of marginal bone. [4],[5] Splinting teeth with implants for implant-supported fixed prosthesis have not been shown to affect the long-term outcome in comparison to free standing implants. [6] Treatments with periodontally healthy teeth and implants splinted together in rigid one piece superstructure, with short edentulous span, have been reported to show excellent long-term follow-up results. [7]

Hence, a prosthesis with a short span in relation to 41, 42, 43, 44 and 31, 32, 33 with 33, 43 as natural abutment and 32, 43 as pontic was splinted to the implants with rigid connectors which prevented failure due to intrusion of natural teeth. [8]


   Conclusion Top


Rehabilitation of fractured mandible coupled with loss of mandibular anterior teeth requires a multidisciplinary approach. The present report depicts such an approach with natural teeth and implant in relation to 31, 32, 33, 41, 42, 43, 44. High satisfaction was registered by the patient for oral function, esthetics, speech and prosthesis adaptation.

 
   References Top

1.Carl EM. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. 3 rd ed. Elsevier PublicationSaint; Louis Missouri,Mosby 2008 261-265.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Kronström M, Trulsson M, Söderfeldt B. Patient evaluation of treatment with fixed prosthesis supported by implants or a combination of teeth and implants. J Prosthodontics 2004;13:160-5.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Lindh T. Should we extract teeth to avoid tooth -implant combinations. J Oral Rehabiiation 2008;35:44-54.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Nickenig HJ, Spiekermann H, Wichmann M, Andreas SK, Eitner S. Survival and complication rates of combined tooth implant supported FPD. Int J Prosthodont 2008;21:131-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Lindh T, Dahlgren S, Kjell G. Tooth implant supported fixed prosthesis -Retrospective multicentre study. In Prostho 2001;4:321-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Hosny M, Duyck J, Steenberghe VD. Within subject comparision between conneted and non connected tooth to implant fixed partial prosthesis upto 14 years follow up study. Int J Prosthod; 2000;13:340-6.   Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Kindberg H, Gunne J, Kronstrom. Tooth and implant supported prosthesis: Retrospective clinical follow upto 8 years. Int J Prosthodontics 2001;14:575-81.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Greenstein G, Cavallaro J, Smith R, Tarnow D. Connecting teeth to implants: A critical review of literatures and presentation of practical guidelines. Compendium 2009;30:7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8]



 

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

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Case Report
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2289    
    Printed114    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded359    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal