Heavy bone loss around implants in grinder: feedback?

49 year old female patient who had 3 Nobel Biocare implants installed in #20 -19 sites [mandibular left second premolar and first molar; 35-36] in 2008. The implants were restored with 3 single unsplinted crowns. The periapical radiograph was taken in 2012. The panoramic radiograph (opg) was taken in 2014. Note the massive bone loss around the implants. I removed the mobile middle implant. Patient is a heavy bruxer but is too lazy to wear the protective nightguard. feedback? What do you recommend I do at this point for this failing case?


initial xray taken.initial xray.
2012-2Image32


12 Comments on Heavy bone loss around implants in grinder: feedback?

New comments are currently closed for this post.
Zvi Fudim
1/18/2015
The only treatment in medicine that always works, is removing the cause. The fit of these crowns is a "killer" for the bone. We are talking about the marginal seal. I mean that even if the margin looks closed on the X-Ray but it has gaps more than 10 microns. Temporary cementation is also an issue. Have ever smelled a crown that was cemented with temporary cement even for two weeks? It smells horrible. 100 years ago surgeons didn't wash their hands and didn't wear gloves while operating. Patients were dieing and no one understood why. The only solution to achieve the proper marginal fit is start taking direct impressions without using transfers or impression copings. Such technique requires tissue management around the abutment. I mean gingival retraction using G-Cuff. It also allows easy splinting these 3 crowns especially if the patient is a bruxer.
Zvi Fudim
1/18/2015
The main problem in this case is the marginal fit. Once the crowns fit well and there is no gap there won't be a bone loss. Sometimes the misfit is so small that it can't be seen on the X-ray but the damage to the bone can be as significant. The solution is taking impression directly without transfers.
Gregori Kurtzman, DDS, MA
1/18/2015
The cusps on the two opposing premolars are a big factor since these stick down below the occlusal plane and allowed the pt to during bruxing to overload these two implants (distal implant little bone loss as no opposing tooth) occlusal plane should have been corrected before the implants were restored. also look at the 2012 PA the crestal bone isnt very dense lets see a PA of the implants when restored
Zvi Fudim
1/18/2015
If it is known that the patient is a bruxer, why the crown aren't splinted?
Gregori Kurtzman, DDS, MA
1/18/2015
Zvi I agree always prefer to splint to help distribute the load over more area
mpedds
1/20/2015
With all due respect, when one restores something i.e. an old automobile or house we attempt to return it to its original condition. When we restore a patient, we should attempt to do the same. This case was not a restoration, these are simply implants and crowns. Looking at the occlusal plane one can see a deep curve of Spee as well as super-eruption of the opposing dentition. The patient is a bruxer and exhibits para-function. Part of the treatment plan in a case such as this is to address these findings in order to ensure success and/or reduce the risk of failure. I am assuming the patient paid close to $15,000 for this treatment. They deserve our best efforts. This is an occlusal rehabilitation case. To restore these implants and place them under the most ideal loads should be the goal.
CRS
1/21/2015
I'm curious how the teeth were originally lost. This looks like peri-implantitis and it appears the implants are below the plane of occlusion with the opposing maxillary premolars out of occlusion. This is what untreated peri-implantitis looks like. It appears that the tipped supraerupted molar is holding the vertical can't really tell since the patient is not in full occlusion on the panorex.
Zvi Fudim
1/21/2015
First I would like to make my self clear. I don't want to criticize but rather to analyze the case in order to understand it better. Implant failure has always two factors. The biological factor and the bio-mechanical one. From the mechanical point of view besides the option of splinting the crowns there was a room to put longer implants. CBCT treatment planning and guided surgery gives the dentist more confidence to work with longer implants. From the biological point of view, besides the marginal fit that may cause the significant bone loss, the fact that implant fixtures left sometimes for years on a temporary cement, can be the main reason for such a failure. Temporary cementation has advantage of retrievability in implants, but it has also a high price. Implant abutment cannot suffer from decay, however when the organic filer is washed away it is replaced by bacteria and inflammation.
Zaki Kanaan
1/22/2015
Are these NobelDirect implants?
David Levitt
1/25/2015
I have placed approximately 7000 implants over the last 32 years. Most of them were done before guided surgery existed. Guided surgery is not the reason those implants are too short, nor is it the reason the margins are open. The reason is lack of surgical and prosthetic skill. The problem with guided surgery is that it does not allow the dentist to develop any surgical technique. As far as the occlusal scheme goes, once again the majority of implants I placed were patchwork. Very few of the patients were restored to ideal occlusion with full mouth reconstruction yet I have cases that have been in function for over 30 years. Finally I was the expert witness on a case in which 4 implants were never restored. No occlusion, no bruxism, no open margins and the bone simply dissolved around them. Sometimes stuff (I was thinking of a different word actually) happens. I am going to post a full arch case in which the bone is disappearing. It is screw retained, and fits beautifully. There is no evidence of bruxing. Health history is non-contributory. I cant wait to hear the suggestions.
Richard Hughes, DDS, FAAI
1/26/2015
Dr Levitt, your comments are spot on. The issues here are bruxing and a nonidealized occlusion, not open margins.
Zvi Fudim
1/26/2015
"The problem with guided surgery is that it does not allow the dentist to develop any surgical technique." Have someone heard about semi-guided surgery or parallel surgical guide. SG Parallel Surgical Guide - HIDENTECH ?

Featured Products

OsteoGen Bone Grafting Plug
Combines bone graft with a collagen plug to yield the easiest and most affordable way to clinically deliver bone graft for socket preservation.
CevOss Bovine Bone Graft
Make the switch to a better xenograft! High volume of interconnected pores promotes new bone. Substantially equivalent to BioOss and NuOss.