Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 27, 2025
Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
The L-shape technique in guided bone regeneration with simultaneous implant placement in the esthetic zone: A
Anina-Nives Zuercher1,2, Leonardo Mancini1,3, Nadja Naenni1
1Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Objectives:
To describe the methodology of the "L-shape" technique in guided bone regeneration (GBR) with simultaneous implant placement and report on the clinical, esthetic, and patient satisfaction outcomes up to 14 years of follow-up.
Material And Methods:
Fourteen patients treated with the "L-shape" technique were included in this retrospective study. The L-shape technique was performed by trimming and placing a soft-type bone block made of deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen at the buccal-occlusal aspect of the dental implant. The remaining gaps were filled with deproteinized bovine bone mineral granules and the augmented area was covered with a collagen membrane. The following parameters were recorded: probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index (PI), keratinized tissue width (KT) and marginal bone level (MBL). Esthetic outcomes were assessed according to the pink esthetic score (PES) and the white esthetic score (WES). Patient satisfaction was evaluated by means of a numerical rating scale (0-10). The stability of each augmented site was assessed by measuring the volumetric changes between baseline (crown delivery) and the respective follow-up.
Results:
A total of 13 maxillary incisors and one maxillary canine in 14 patients were included. The mean follow-up period was 7.7 ± 3.8 years. PES values amounted to 10.7 ± 3.3 and WES to 8.8 ± 1.4. Patient satisfaction reached 9.4 ± 0.8. Mean PD at implant sites were 2.7 ± 0.7 mm while BOP amounted to 15.0 ± 0.2% and Pl to 5.0 ± 0.0%. Volumetric analyses revealed minimal changes at the augmented sites irrespective of the region of interest. Radiographic MBL remained relatively stable.
Conclusions:
Within the limitation of the present study the L-shape augmentation procedure seems to be a reliable technique when performing GBR with simultaneous implant placement in the esthetic zone. Outcomes encompassed stable clinical and esthetic results accompanied by high levels of patient satisfaction. Future randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm possible benefits of the L-shape technique over traditional approaches.
Clinical Significance:
The L-shape appears to be a simple yet promising technique in GBR with simultaneous implant placement that can easily be translated into clinical practice.
