PMC4700069_01
3D digital volumetric reconstruction of the mandibular defect
40902_2015_48_Fig5_HTML.jpg
PMC4700069_01_40902_2015_48_Fig5_HTML.jpg
Fig5
Preoperative clinical and radiographical examinations were used to assess the morphology of the alveolar ridge (Figs. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9).
3D digital volumetric reconstruction of HA scaffold placed in the defect
40902_2015_48_Fig6_HTML.jpg
PMC4700069_01_40902_2015_48_Fig6_HTML.jpg
Fig6
Preoperative clinical and radiographical examinations were used to assess the morphology of the alveolar ridge (Figs. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9).
3D digital volumetric reconstruction of HA scaffold placed in the defect
40902_2015_48_Fig7_HTML.jpg
PMC4700069_01_40902_2015_48_Fig7_HTML.jpg
Fig7
Preoperative clinical and radiographical examinations were used to assess the morphology of the alveolar ridge (Figs. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9).
3D digital volumetric reconstruction of implant placement in regenerated bone
40902_2015_48_Fig8_HTML.jpg
PMC4700069_01_40902_2015_48_Fig8_HTML.jpg
Fig8
Preoperative clinical and radiographical examinations were used to assess the morphology of the alveolar ridge (Figs. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9).
3D digital volumetric reconstruction of implant placement in regenerated bone
40902_2015_48_Fig9_HTML.jpg
PMC4700069_01_40902_2015_48_Fig9_HTML.jpg
Fig9
Preoperative clinical and radiographical examinations were used to assess the morphology of the alveolar ridge (Figs. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9).
Intraoral radiography: the peri-implant defect
40902_2015_48_Fig10_HTML.jpg
PMC4700069_01_40902_2015_48_Fig10_HTML.jpg
Fig10
At 2 months, after the implant was removed (Figs. 10 and 11), a full thickness midcrestal incision was made and a mucoperiosteal flap was raised.
Intraoral radiography: defect after implant removal
40902_2015_48_Fig11_HTML.jpg
PMC4700069_01_40902_2015_48_Fig11_HTML.jpg
Fig11
At 2 months, after the implant was removed (Figs. 10 and 11), a full thickness midcrestal incision was made and a mucoperiosteal flap was raised.
Intraoral radiography: HA scaffold placement
40902_2015_48_Fig12_HTML.jpg
PMC4700069_01_40902_2015_48_Fig12_HTML.jpg
Fig12
The bone volume following regeneration was satisfactory, and one short osseointegrated implant (4.75 x 7 mm) was placed in position 45 (Figs. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17).
Intraoral radiography: regenerated bone after 5 months
40902_2015_48_Fig13_HTML.jpg
PMC4700069_01_40902_2015_48_Fig13_HTML.jpg
Fig13
The bone volume following regeneration was satisfactory, and one short osseointegrated implant (4.75 x 7 mm) was placed in position 45 (Figs. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17).
Intraoral radiography: implant placement
40902_2015_48_Fig14_HTML.jpg
PMC4700069_01_40902_2015_48_Fig14_HTML.jpg
Fig14
The bone volume following regeneration was satisfactory, and one short osseointegrated implant (4.75 x 7 mm) was placed in position 45 (Figs. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17).
Clinical view: HA scaffold placement
40902_2015_48_Fig15_HTML.jpg
PMC4700069_01_40902_2015_48_Fig15_HTML.jpg
Fig15
The bone volume following regeneration was satisfactory, and one short osseointegrated implant (4.75 x 7 mm) was placed in position 45 (Figs. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17).