The objective of this study is to report a clinical case of a female patient, melanoderma, 18 years old, referred to the FOA-UNESP surgery and traumatology team in 2013, reporting being a victim of a high-level fall in the attempted suicide. Clinical examination revealed loss of teeth 33, 32, 31, 41, 42, 43 and 44 and CT scan of the face revealed NOE, Lefort I and II and Lanelong fractures. The patient underwent a surgical procedure to reduce and fix fractures. The case was followed up after hospital discharge. A mandible CT was requested to install dental implants. Surgical planning was performed to install implants and make a surgical guide. 4 implants were installed in the region of teeth 32, 31, 41, 42, 43. Two years after the implant was installed, the patient returned to the institution reporting pain in tooth 45. The patient was referred by the screening sector to the endodontic team, which requested a new CT examination of the mandible, noting that the implants installed in the regions of teeth 33 and 44 had reached teeth 34 and 45, indicating the extraction of these teeth and removal of 2 implants. Surgical planning was performed and the extraction and removal surgery of the implants performed. After waiting for the healing period, the patient was referred to the dental prosthesis team and it was defined that reverse planning would be carried out to install the new implants and oral rehabilitation using a supported implant prosthesis. Thus, the impressions left by the case allow us to conclude that the use of a surgical guide, without prosthetic planning, provides the inexperienced surgeon with false security for the procedure, with reverse planning and professional experience essential for implant dentistry.