Open AccessPeer ReviewedPublished Monthly Since 2007 Vol. 19, Issue 12 · November 2026Media Kitinfo@guident.net
Open AccessImplantology

Implant Placement with GBR in the Mandible: Case Study

  • Dr. Daniel Buser Department of Oral Surgery and StomatologyProfessor

School of Dental Medicine, University of Berne, Switzerland

Guident · Volume 9, Issue 10 (September 2016)Published September 20163 min read12 figures

Circumferential bone anchorage in the alveolar ridge is key to the long-term success of an implant. Therefore, bone defects at the implant site have to be corrected by means of GBR.

The same surgical technique with simultaneous GBR therapy presented in this case report has been used at our clinic since the turn of the century. Inaddition, the long-term result after
11.5 years is presented.

GBR WITH BONE, BIOMATERIAL AND MEMBRANE

The patient was referred after the extraction of two molars(36 and 37). The result was a local bone defect in region 36.The implant surgery took place about four months later. This involved a 10 mm long tissue level implant (Straumann AG,Basel) inserted in the correct prosthetic position with goodprimary stability. There was a medium-sized buccal bone defect with a favourable 2-wall defect morphology. This defect wasfilled initially with locally harvested, autologous bone chips andthen covered with Geistlich Bio-Oss® granules. The graft was covered with a Geistlich Bio- Gide® membrane applied in a double layer. After the periosteal incision, the tension-free primary wound closure concluded the procedure. Five months later the implant was uncovered and prosthetic restoration was performed by the referring colleague.The clinical examination after 11.5 years revealed a peri-implant mucosa that was free of inflammation, and the radiograph showed stable bone crest levels. A Cone Beam CT confirmed the existence of an intact buccal bone wall.

WHAT MAKES THE METHOD WORK SO WELL?

Two long-term studies with CBCT imaging showed excellent results with regeneration of a buccal bone wall. These resultscan be attributed primarily to the applied biomaterials that complement one another optimally. The locally harveste dautologous bone chips stimulate new bone formation across the defect area in the early phase of healing. This stimulation is caused by growth factors in the bone matrix that are passedinto the surrounding blood clot. The Geistlich Bio-Oss® granules applied have the critical function of preserving the regeneratedbone volume long-term.Various histological studies have indicated that Geistlich Bio-Oss® has a very low substitution rate. Geistlich Bio-Gide® membrane made from noncross- linked collagen is simple to apply, has few complications, fulfils the vital barrier function for four to eight weeks and stabilizes the applied bone filler. And it does not have to be removed, because it is slowly absorbed by tissue.

Clinical figure

Situation after the extraction of tooth 36 and 37.

Clinical figure

Local bone defect in region 36.

Clinical figure

Buccal bone defect with dual-walled morphology.

Clinical figure

Situation after implantation and filling the defect with autologous bone
chips.

Clinical figure

Geistlich Bio-Oss® Granulate is applied to the bone.

Clinical figure

A double layer of Geistlich Bio-Gide® covers the graft.

Clinical figure

Primary wound closure after periosteal incision.

Clinical figure

Prosthetic restoration 1-year after implantation.

Clinical figure

Radiograph findings 1-year after implantation.

Clinical figure

Stable clinical situation after 11.5 years.

Clinical figure

The radiograph shows a stable bone situation after 11.5 years.

Clinical figure

The CBCT image shows an intact buccal bone wall after 11.5 years.

LITERATURE

  1. Buser D, et al.: J Periodontol 2013; 84: 1517–27.
  2. Buser D, et al.: J Dent Res 2013; 92: 176S–82S.
  3. Buser D, et al.: Int J Periodont Rest Dent 2008; 28: 440–51.
  4. Caballé-Serrano J, et al.: Clin Oral Invest (2016, accepted)
  5. Caballé-Serrano J, et al.: Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 (e-pub)
  6. Jensen SS, et al.: Clin Oral Impl Res 2006 ; 17: 237–43.
  7. Jensen SS, et al.: J Periodontol 2014; 85: 1549–56.

DISCLAIMER

This Article was first published in Geistlich News Volume (Issue 1/2016). Article reprint with the permission of the Author and Geistlich Pharma India Pvt. Ltd.

Disclaimer from Guident

The views and opinions expressed in articles published in Guident are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors, the editorial board or the publisher, Ivory India. Guident does not endorse any product, technique or treatment described. Clinical content is intended for qualified dental and medical professionals and is not a substitute for individual clinical judgement. Guident, its editors and the publisher accept no liability for any consequence arising from the use of information published in the journal.

How to cite this article

Dr. Daniel Buser Department of Oral Surgery and Stomatology. Implant Placement with GBR in the Mandible: Case Study. Guident. 2016 Sep;9(10). Available from: https://guident.in/articles/implantology/implant-placement-with-gbr-in-the-mandible-case-study.html

Related articles

More in Implantology

All 224 articles
Vol. 9, Issue 11 · October 2016

Tantalum Dental Implants: An Insight

Primary implant stability is a prerequisite for achieving and maintaining osseointegration. various methods of altering implant surface characteristics have been introduced to increase…

Dr. Neelansh Sikri

Call for papers

Publish your clinical work in Guident

Original research, case reports and review articles are welcomed from clinicians and researchers worldwide. Every submission is assessed by the editorial board.