Posterior mandible reconstruction using cerabone® plus, permamem® and mucoderm® – A case report
Dr. Marko Blašković
The presented case describes the rehabilitation of a challenging extended edentulous site in the posterior lower jaw, using state-of the-art bone regeneration- and soft tissue management techniques, with the goal to bring back the patient a long-term stable dentition.
INITIAL SITUATION
A female patient (66 years old) came to the clinic requesting a periodontal treatment. The patient was in healthy condition, without taking medication and was a non-smoker. She was already missing tooth #36, #37 and #25 (Fig. 1 and 2). After initial periodontal treatment, revaluation and maintenance therapy, the patient requested to restore the missing teeth. The tooth gap at position #36 and #37 impaired the patient’s ability to chew and was therefore primarily of functional concern.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_01
Fig. 1 Initial situation showing reduced bone volume in region #36 and #37.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_02
Fig. 2 Initial situation in region #36 and #37. Reduced keratinized mucosa width before the treatment.
TREATMENT PLANNING
After CBCT assessment (Fig. 3 and 4), implant placement and simultaneous GBR was proposed to the patient. Since three defects were expected to occur around the implant (buccal and lingual dehiscence and a small two to three millimetre vertical defect on the distal side of the implant), a non-resorbable membrane (permamem®) was planned to be used, which would provide sufficient form stability and thus optimal conditions for complete defect resolution. A combination of autogenous graft and a volume stable bone substitute (cerabone® plus) were planned to be used as a bone graft. The autogenous bone would be collected with a bone scraper form the retromolar region adjacent to the defect site. Finally, a soft tissue management procedure will be planned prior to the restorative work.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_03
Fig. 3 Detailed evaluation of region #36 and #37.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_04
Fig. 4 Combined horizontal and vertical defect.
SURGICAL AND PROSTHETIC PROCEDURE
Implant placement and GBR
A full thickness flap was raised with a vertical incision. The incision was elongated in the distal direction in order to include the retromolar region (Fig. 5). Then the patient underwent an atraumatic extraction of tooth number #38 as the tooth showed a poor perio prognosis with deep pockets and resorption more than half to two-thirds of the root length. Thereafter, a 4.1 x 10 BLT Straumann bone level implant was placed and, as expected, three peri-implant defects were present (Fig. 6 – 8). Cortical perforations were performed on the buccal aspect. The membrane (permamem®, 20 x 30 mm) was trimmed according to the defect size and initially stabilised in the apical part of the membrane. Subsequently a bone graft was placed: for the first layer only autogenous bone was used, which was harvested from the retromolar area (Fig. 9 – 11) and packed around the exposed implant surface (Fig. 12). For the second layer a mixture of 50% autogenous bone and 50% cerabone® plus was used (Fig. 13). The second layer was used on top of the first layer. Afterwards, the membrane was placed over the graft, tightly adapted and completely stabilized with additional bone pins (Fig. 14). 6.0 monofilament resorbable mattress sutures were used to achieve primary and tension-free wound closure (Fig. 15).

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_05
Fig. 5 After flap elevation and extraction of tooth #38.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_06
Fig. 6 After implant placement.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_07
Fig. 7 Peri-implant bone deficiency with buccal and lingual dehiscence, and vertical defect.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_08
Fig. 8 Occlusal view.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_09
Fig. 9 Donor site for bone grafting in the retromolar area.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_10
Fig. 10 Minimal trauma in the donor site-retromolar region.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_11
Fig. 11 Autogenous bone graft.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_12
Fig. 12 Initial fixation of permamem®. Autogenous bone as the first layer of the graft.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_13
Fig. 13 Second layer 50% autogenous bone and 50% cerabone® plus.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_14
Fig. 14 permamem® placed over the grafted site and stabilized with titanium pins.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_15
Fig. 15 Primary wound closure.
Re-entry
After six months of healing time, the treated site presented with excellent soft tissue healing (Fig. 19) and was reopened with a full thickness flap and the non-resorbable membrane was removed (Fig. 16 and 17). The re-entered site showed optimal graft integration with a sufficient bone gain both in horizontal and vertical dimension (Fig. 17 and 18). However, displacement of the mucogingival line and a reduced width of the keratinized mucosa was evident (Fig. 19).

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_16
Fig. 16 Removal of permamem®.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_17
Fig. 17 Regenerated site after membrane reflection.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_18
Fig. 18 CBCT at re-entry.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_19
Fig. 19 Soft tissue situation before re-entry.
Soft tissue management
Two months after re-entry and membrane removal, a widening of the keratinized mucosa was performed: an apically positioned flap was combined with a free gingival graft. The graft was taken from the distal part of the palate (Fig. 20 – 22).

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_20
Fig. 20 Situation 2 months after removal of the membrane.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_21
Fig. 21 Apically displaced flap.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_22
Fig. 22 Free gingival graft stabilized on the exposed periostal surface.
Two months after the third procedure, a sufficient gain of keratinized tissue could be achieved (Fig. 23 and 24). Then, the implant uncovering procedure was performed with simultaneous peri-implant soft tissue augmentation. In order to avoid a second harvesting procedure from the palate, a porcine acellular dermal matrix (mucoderm®) was used instead. The matrix was hydrated in sterile saline solution and placed at the buccal aspect. The marginal soft tissues were sutured using 6.0 non-resorbable monofilament sutures (Fig. 25 – 27).

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_23
Fig. 23 Soft tissue situation 2 months later.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_24
Fig. 24 Lateral view showing adequate keratinized tissue width.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_25
Fig. 25 Augmentation of soft tissue thickness with mucoderm®.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_26
Fig. 26 Suturing to cover mucoderm® by the flap and to stabilize the treated site.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_27
Fig. 27 Occlusal view.
Six weeks after healing abutment placement, a provisional crown was fabricated. The provisional crown was used to condition the soft tissue and obtain a more natural emergence profile (Fig. 28 – 31).

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_28
Fig. 28 Situation 6 weeks after placement of the healing abutment.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_29
Fig. 29 Occlusal view.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_30
Fig. 30 Provisional screw retained crown.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_31
Fig. 31 Provisional crown in situ.

Case_Report_Blaskovic_marko_32
Fig. 32 Final restoration.
FINAL SCORE
A screw retained monolithic ceramic zirconia crown (on Variobase link) was created as definitive restoration (Fig. 32). The bone augmentation procedure allowed the fulfilment of two important goals: 1) prosthetically driven implant placement, which enables fabrication of a screw retained crown and 2) bony walls of adequate thickness (minimum of two millimetres) surrounding the implant. Soft tissue augmentation procedures recreated the peri-implant soft tissue of adequate quality (two millimetres keratinized soft tissue) and thickness (at least two millimetres), which has a positive long-term effect providing peri-implant soft tissue and marginal bone stability and facilitating the maintenance of oral hygiene.
CONCLUSION
The fulfilment of all aforementioned points is especially important in periodontally compromised patients, who have an increased risk for developing peri-implantitis. A detailed clinical diagnosis and treatment planning together with the selection of suitable biomaterials is key for achieving a satisfying outcome both on a functional and aesthetic level.