Accidental displacement of a dental implant into the maxillary sinus is an infrequent although not uncommon complication encountered in dental clinical practice, with the main cause thought to be inadequate bone height in the posterior maxilla. We report a case of migration of a dental implant into the maxillary sinus, and discuss the benefits of its removal by a combination of endoscopically assisted and bone repositioning techniques. A 35-year-old Japanese man with a partially edentulous maxilla underwent implant placement at a private clinic. Three months later, at the time of abutment connection, the implant at the site of his maxillary right first molar was accidentally pushed into the sinus. The hole on the alveolar ridge made for placement of the implant was small and far from the dislocated implant, thus access was achieved in a transoral manner via the frontal wall of his maxillary sinus with an endoscopic approach. Piezoelectric instruments were used to perform an osteotomy. The bone lid was removed, and the implant was identified using a rigid endoscope and removed with a surgical aspirator, followed by repositioning of the bony segment; the area was secured with an absorbable suture. Removal of migrated implants should be considered in order to prevent possible sinusal disease complications. In the present case, removal of a dental implant displaced into the maxillary sinus by use of a combination of endoscopically assisted and bone repositioning techniques proved to be a safe and reliable procedure.

Endoscope-assisted transoral open reduction and internal fixation (EAORIF) for mandibular condyle fractures has recently become popular because it is minimally invasive, provides excellent visibility without a large incision, and reduces surgical scarring and the risk of facial nerve injury. This report describes a retrospective clinical study that compared certain clinical parameters, including postoperative function, between the retromandibular (RM) approach and EAORIF. Fifteen patients were treated by the RM approach, whereas 15 underwent EAORIF between July 2006 and September 2011 at Kyushu Dental College, Japan. Clinical indices comprised fracture line, fracture type, number of plates used, surgical duration, bleeding amount, and functional items, including maximum interincisal opening, mandibular deviation on the opening pathway, malocclusion, facial paresthesia, and temporomandibular joint pain and clicking. The areas subjected to either approach included lower neck and subcondyle. The RM approach was used for mandibular condyle fractures with dislocation of a small bone segment. Both groups used 2 plates in all cases. Surgical duration, maximum interincisal opening, mandibular deviation, occlusion, and temporomandibular joint function at 6 months after surgery were comparable between groups. The average bleeding amount in the EAORIF group was greater than in the RM group. One patient from the RM group developed facial paresthesia that persisted for 6 months after surgery. It was concluded that surgical treatment was suitable for fractures of the lower neck and subcondylar. Both procedures showed good results in the functional items of this study.

Tanaka K, et al. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2018 Dec;48(6):360-372. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2018.48.6.360

Objective: The aim of the present study was to identify the risk factors for aggressive condylar resorption (ACR) after orthognathic surgery. Methods: A total of 25 female patients with osteoarthritis (OA) scheduled for orthognathic surgery were divided into two groups: those who exhibited ACR (ACR (+), n = 8) and those who did not exhibit ACR (ACR (−), n = 17) after surgery. Clinical indices were used to determine the extent of mandibular advancement, the presence of temporomandibular disorder (TMD), and relevant medical treatment histories (including the use of oral contraceptive (OC) medication. TMJ dysfunction was clinically evaluated in terms of pain, the presence of sounds (clicks or crepitus), and disc displacement, joint effusion (JE), and synovial hyperplasia (SH); these were further investigated with the aid of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The cephalographic findings were compared with the normal profiles of Japanese subjects. Results: The mean (with SD) extent of mandibular advancement was 11.4 mm (2.4) in ACR (+) and 4.1 mm (1.8) in ACR (−). The TMD medical history of ACR (+) was much more extensive than that of ACR (−); all patients in ACR (+) had a history of OC use. More patients in ACR (+) than in ACR (−) had TMJ dysfunction and disc displacement, JE, and SH on MRI. Preoperative cephalograms showed that ACR (+) patients exhibited counterclockwise rotation of the mandible and retrognathism that was attributable to a small sella–nasion–B (SNB) angle, a wide mandibular plane angle, and a negative inclination of the ramus. Conclusions: The present findings suggest that the development of ACR after orthognathic surgery to treat mandibular retrognathism may be associated with coexisting TMJ pathologic abnormality.