Alveolar Distraction Osteogenesis

Resorbed alveolar ridges, which can be horizontal or vertical in size, are one of the most prevalent issues addressed by dental experts. One of the therapy options for addressing the weak sections of the alveolar ridges is alveolar distraction osteogenesis. Alveolar distraction osteogenesis is a biological process that includes gradual traction between vascularized bone segments in order to generate new bone. Typically, an osteotomy is done, followed by the placement of an osteodistraction device to manage the separating process. This approach eliminates the need for bone grafts by producing the same quality and shape of bone. Distraction osteogenesis (DO) causes soft tissue to develop as new bone is formed on the deficient ridge. Because this treatment restores bone height, lengthier dental implants can be placed. In this work, we cover ride augmentation and the numerous procedures used to repair a resorbed alveolar ridge. It emphasises the relevance of alveolar distraction osteogenesis and provides a brief history of the procedure based on existing information. To summarise, distraction osteogenesis proved efficient in increasing the alveolar ridge and ensuring dental implant recovery. KEY WORDS Distraction osteogenesis, stages of distraction osteogenesis, advantages and disadvantages of distraction osteogenesis.

Interest and outcomes of alveolar distraction osteogenesis for dental implant rehabilitation following mandibular reconstruction

Introduction: Alveolar distraction osteogenesis (ADO) is one of vertical bone augmentation technique used to restore the vertical bone discrepancy between the transplanted graft and the residual alveolar bone after mandibular reconstruction. The aim of this article is to present the clinical outcomes of ADO applied to reconstructed mandible for three patients. Observation: Three patients underwent alveolar distraction osteogenesis procedure on mandibula reconstructed by fibula free flap (n = 2) or iliac crest free flap (n = 1). The mean bone height increase was 11 mm. 16 implants have been placed in all patients, with a success rate of 100% and a mean follow-up of 25 months. Two complications occurred without compromising the final outcome of the procedure: one fracture of the basal bone and one bony interference, both during activation phase. Commentaries: ADO can be performed on reconstructed mandible with free flap to restore alveolar height. An acceptable implant-to-crown ratio allows an optimal supported implant prosthesis. The particular antecedent of our patients can lead to uncommon complications such as basal bone fracture, but doesn't seem to compromise implant placement with good success rate. Conclusions: ADO performed on reconstructed mandible allows appropriate dental implant rehabilitation, achieving good esthetics and occlusal outcomes.