Augmentation of upper central incisor area: with or without removing of nasopalatinal canal contents?
Last Updated: Mar 19, 2017
I have treatment planned the #8 edentulous site for a bone augmentation and implant placement after osseointegration. The bone defect in the #8 site is very large and connected to the incisive canal. The periodontal health of the surrounding teeth is stable. I would prefer leaving the canal’s contents, as that is less traumatic, but alternatively it is a consideration to remove the canal contents to prevent soft tissue growth into the bone defect instead of osseous tissue. I could deliver a graft of 50% autogenous bone mixed with beta-tricalcium phosphate and hydroxyapatite or xenograft, use a titanium mesh as a scaffold, thin collagen membrane and PRF. What is your opinion? Leave or remove the canal contents? May soft tissue of the canal interfere with augmentation material and lead to:
1) grow of soft/fibrous tissue instead of osseous tissue
2) post-op pain symptoms (transient or worse – permanent) due to close contact of granules and nasopalatinal nerves?






3 Comments on Augmentation of upper central incisor area: with or without removing of nasopalatinal canal contents?
Vipul G Shukla
03/21/2017
Elijah Arrington III
03/22/2017
Featured Products
Classic 50/50 Mix
Promotes osteoconduction
Provides structural integrity
Convenient Syringe!
50/50 Cortical/Cancellous
Available in 3 sizes.
Eliminate hassle of mixing particulate grafts
Sold in packs of 5 or packs of 10.
Proven safe, and clinically effective
Resorbable collagen membrane derived from purified porcine pericardium
Fast hydration and excellent tensile strength
Good adaptation to various defects
Excellent tear function and duration
100% allograft
Eliminates mixing hassle
Moldable after hydration

Bill
03/21/2017