Volume 8 • 2021 • Issue 1

Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Patient B: Additional Augmentation With Patient B, the bone looked good upon re-entry 7months after the GBR procedure ( Fig. 8 ). Implants were placed, but some deficiency was evident at the coronal aspect of the implants towards the buccal aspect ( Fig. 9 ). Rather than leaving it and hoping that the soft tissue and the exposed implant surface will integrate, I would treat this area with some additional augmentation—almost like a “patch-up GBR procedure.” In this case, an ossifying collagen scaffold 3 was used ( Fig. 10 ). This material is a scaffold that will ossify over time and will help with the contour conversion on the buccal aspect of the implant. It is relatively easy to use for minor deficiencies, such as with Patient B. I then placed a healing abutment, performed closure, and allowed the area to heal for 4 months before sending the patient back to their referring dentist for restoration of the implants ( Fig. 11 ). Dr. Bhide believes that GBR is a highly predictive procedure in a healthy patient if all the principles mentioned in this article are followed. However, in a number of cases, further augmentation will be required. “It is not a failure if you regenerate a site and you have to do a little more augmentation at the time of implant placement,” says Dr. Bhide. “The important thing is to place the implants. It is only a failure if there is no possibility to do so and if you have to start all over again.” The original version of this article appeared on CDA Oasis: bit.ly/3lFm8xl Sources: 1. Wang, HL, Boyapati, L. “PASS” principles for predictable bone regeneration. Implant Dent . 2006 Mar;15(1):8-17. doi: 10.1097/01.id.0000204762.39826.0f 2. Z-Matrix, Osteogenics Biomedical, USA 3. Ossix Volumax, Datum Dental, Israel S upporting Y our P ractice 35 Issue 1 | 2021 |