Search

The osseodensification (OD) technique differs from conventional milling for dental implant installation in that it preserves the prepared bone and compacts it toward the apex and lateral walls of the socket, resulting in bone compaction. By enabling autografting, bone expansion, and high implant insertion torques, OD has become an increasingly popular option. The aim of this clinical case report is to demonstrate the predictability of combining OD with guided bone and tissue regeneration (GBR/GTR) techniques for bone expansion in the maxilla with reduced thickness, while avoiding other reconstructive surgeries. The report presents the treatment of a 32-year-old female patient who had cosmetic concerns regarding the anterior maxillary region. The patient was using an adhesive prosthesis with pontic on tooth 13 fixed between teeth 12 and 14. After the case was planned, it was decided that bone expansion in the region would be performed using the OD technique. The implant installation (AR Torque, 3.5×11.5 mm, Conexão®) and guided bone regeneration (GBR) were done with the assistance of L-PRF (Stick Bone, associated with L-PRF membrane). Following the osseointegration period, a provisional resin crown was fabricated, and a collagen matrix membrane (Mucoderm®) was used to increase vestibular soft tissue volume and shape the patient’s gingival profile. After a period of 120 days, the final crown was created and observed for a span of 5 years. The results showed stability of the case along with maintaining its esthetic and satisfactory function. The use of the osseodensification technique coupled with a connective tissue graft substitute has been anticipated for a long time. It has proven to be an excellent alternative to autogenous grafts.

The aim of this study was to determine whether there are differences in the attitudes of Dentistry School Professors from two universities, one private and one public, concerning HIV-positive patients or HIVpositive health care professionals. A questionnaire was handled to all professors at the Araçatuba Dental School of São Paulo State University - FOA-UNESP (public) and Lins Dental School of the Piracicaba Methodist University - FOL-UNIMEP (private). When asked if they would be willing to be treated by an HIV-infected health care professional, 38.9% of the 77 professors at FOA-UNESP replied that they would accept only non-invasive treatments and 13% would not accept any kind of treatment; the same applied to 42.4% and 15.2% of the 33 FOL-UNIMEP professors. Among the 54 professors at FOA-UNESP and 27 at FOL-UNIMEP providing clinical service, only 31.5% and 18.5% stated that they treat HIV-infected persons like any other patient. The results were very similar in both schools. Although they reported that they taught their students not to act in a discriminatory manner towards HIV-positive patients, the professors themselves showed prejudice towards infected patients and professionals. Consequently, this topic must be further debated in the academic milieu.