Introduction

Replacement of missing teeth in the anterior maxilla is challenging from both a surgical and restorative standpoint. Ideal 3-dimensional implant placement, which is dependent on residual ridge dimensions, is critical to provide an acceptable esthetic result.1  Unfortunately, the high resorption rate of the anterior maxilla after extraction can jeopardize the implant position if additional augmentation procedures are not performed.25  Occasionally, due to excessive resorption and/or enlargement of the incisive canal, the neurovascular contents of this anatomic structure are in the path of the ideal osteotomy. It is surmised that placement of a titanium fixture in direct contact with the incisive canal can lead to complications such as a nasopalatine duct cyst6,7  or implant failure.

The incisive canal is located in the midline of the maxilla posterior to the central incisors. The nasopalatine nerve and terminal branch of the nasopalatine artery pass through the canal, which provides innervation and vascularization to the palatal region from canine to canine. These structures also form anastomoses with the greater palatine nerve and artery, so there is collateral neurovascular supply. Large variations in the size and shape of this canal have been documented, stressing the need for 3-dimensional imaging in cases in proximity to this structure.811  Additionally, studies have shown that the size of the canal increases with ridge atrophy.9 

The main concern with removing canal contents is neurosensory disturbances. Magennis et al12  retrospectively evaluated neurosensory disturbance after sectioning of the nasopalatine nerve after elevating a palatal flap. Eighty-five patients were divided into 2 groups: 1 with nerve sectioning and 1 without. None of the patients were aware of altered sensation, but 2 patients in the severed group experienced sensory loss. It appears that due to the additional supply from the greater palatine nerve and artery, there is immediate revascularization and gradual reinnervation of the anterior palate. Moreover, the following reports support this finding (summarized in the Table).

Table

Human case reports and studies of incisive canal enucleation in preparation for implant placement

Human case reports and studies of incisive canal enucleation in preparation for implant placement
Human case reports and studies of incisive canal enucleation in preparation for implant placement

Rosenquist et al13  first described a technique treating 4 patients where the contents of the canal were obliterated and filled with autogenous cancellous bone harvested from the chin. Implants were placed after 6 months of healing, and implant survival at 12–15 months was 100%. No patients complained about altered sensation in the anterior palate. Penarrocha et al14  presented a report on 7 patients where implants were placed into the incisive canal after content removal and placement of autogenous bone chips. Each patient received 1 implant in the canal as part of a full arch fixed prosthesis. One implant failed to osseointegrate in the first 3 months, and the remaining were successful after an average follow-up of 5 years. Five patients noticed a slight decrease in sensitivity at the 1-week postoperative visit, which disappeared in all cases. This primary author also presented a long-term retrospective evaluation15  (mean, 70 months of follow-up) of 13 implants placed in the nasopalatine canal of 13 patients. Two early failures of these implants occurred, but there were no late failures (implant success of 84.6%), and all 6 sensory disturbances resolved within 6 weeks.

Sher et al16  described a technique and presented a report of 3 cases where the canal contents were curetted out and a mixture of demineralized freeze dried allograft (DFDBA) and tricalcium phosphate was placed. The implants survived under short-term follow-up (<3 years), and the patients had no complaints about sensory disturbance.

Artzi et al17  reported a technique to preserve sensory function whereby the contents of the canal were displaced posteriorly using an autogenous symphiseal cortico-cancellous block graft to fit the foramen. The implant was placed simultaneously with the graft, and a 9-month re-entry procedure demonstrated clinically solid bone. Although the implant was restored and functional, the follow-up period was not reported.

Verardi and Pastagia18  published a case report on 2 patients whereby the contents of the canal were removed, and a collagen plug placed into the apical portion of the canal. In 1 case, guided bone regeneration was performed with a cancellous particulate allograft and porcine collagen membrane, and in the other case, an autogenous/bovine xenograft mixture and expanded polytetrafluorethylene (ePTFE) membrane. Implants were installed after 6–7 months of healing and were placed in ideal positioning. Slight numbness was noticed in 1 patient at the 1-week postoperative visit, which resolved by 4 weeks. Follow-up at 24 months was reported as successful.

Other authors have placed implants into the canal without placement of graft material. Spin-Neto et al19  removed the contents in 1 patient and placed 1 implant into the canal, which appeared to be successfully integrated at second-stage surgery. Sensory disturbances were not reported.

The following case report documents the removal of the contents of the canal in conjunction with placement of an allogeneic block graft. Successful use of these grafts has been documented in the literature,20  with the greatest predictability in the anterior maxilla.21  To the author's knowledge, this is the first report where one was used in conjunction with incisive canal enucleation.

Case Report

A 52-year-old white man presented to a private dental clinic to replace missing tooth #8, which was extracted over 5 years prior after recurrent endodontic infection and crown fracture. The patient's medical history was noncontributory, and he denied tobacco use. Clinical examination revealed a deficient maxillary ridge (Figure 1). A cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) scan demonstrated severe bone loss in the area of #8 in close proximity to the incisive foramen (Figure 2). Implant surgery consent was reviewed with the patient, and the possibility of canal enucleation and associated risks was discussed.

Figures 1–2

Figure 1. Presurgical intraoral appearance. Figure 2. Preoperative cone beam computerized tomography.

Figures 1–2

Figure 1. Presurgical intraoral appearance. Figure 2. Preoperative cone beam computerized tomography.

The patient was premedicated with 2 g amoxicillin and 600 mg ibuprofen 1 hour before the procedure. The surgical procedures were completed under local anesthesia with buccal and nasopalatine infiltration (3% Articaine, 1:100 000 epinephrine). Following full-thickness flap reflection with vertical releasing incisions, the contents of the incisive canal were encountered after defect debridement (Figure 3). The coronal portion of the canal was enucleated using curettes and debridement burs with copious irrigation. Freeze-dried particulate cortical allograft (FDBA) (Liftenet Health, Virginia Beach, Va) was placed into the canal, and a cancellous allogeneic block graft (Lifenet Health) was secured using 2 fixation screws (Figure 4). Additional FDBA was placed into the voids and over the buccal aspect of the block, and a bovine collagen membrane (Osseoguard, Biomet 3i, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla) was placed over the grafts (Figure 5). Passive primary closure was obtained via periosteal releasing incisions and polyglycolic acid sutures, and the site was allowed to heal for 6 months prior to implant placement. The patient was wearing an interim partial denture, which was adequately relieved to avoid contact with the surgical site. Postoperative medications included an antibiotic (amoxicillin 500 mg, 3 times per day for 10 days), analgesic (ibuprofen 600 mg, every 6 hours as needed), and an anti-inflammatory (Medrol dose pack, Pfizer Inc, New York, NY).

Figures 3–7

Figure 3. Canal encountered. Figure 4. Block graft fixated. Figure 5. Membrane in place. Figure 6. Re-entry surgery. Figure 7. Implant installation.

Figures 3–7

Figure 3. Canal encountered. Figure 4. Block graft fixated. Figure 5. Membrane in place. Figure 6. Re-entry surgery. Figure 7. Implant installation.

The 6-month re-entry surgery (Figures 6 through 8) demonstrated adequate bone for implant placement (4.3 × 10-mm Nobel Biocare Replace Select, Nobel Biocare, Yorba Linda, Calif), which allowed 35 N·cm of primary stability. A healing abutment was placed for nonsubmerged healing, and the interim prosthesis was relieved. A final impression was taken 5 months later (Figure 9), and the abutment and crown were delivered 1 month thereafter (Figure 10). After 6 months of follow-up, the implant was within normal limits, and the patient noted no sensory disturbances.

Figures 8–10

Figure 8. Implant insertion. Figure 9. Impression coping seated. Figure 10. Final crown.

Figures 8–10

Figure 8. Implant insertion. Figure 9. Impression coping seated. Figure 10. Final crown.

Conclusion

A limited number of case reports have documented successful placement of dental implants into the incisive canal after removal of its neurovascular contents. Neurosensory disturbances in the anterior palate, although infrequently reported, appear to be temporary. Performing guided bone regeneration in conjunction with canal debridement has yielded adequate bone for implant placement, and implant survival in these cases is comparable with implants placed in native sites. However, the data should be interpreted with caution, as they are limited to uncontrolled case reports/case series with short-term follow-up. This report demonstrated a similar outcome, consistent with other studies, with enucleation of the incisive canal and subsequent guided bone regeneration using block and particulate allograft and collagen membrane.

Abbreviations

    Abbreviations
     
  • DFDBA

    demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft

  •  
  • ePTFE

    expanded polytetrafluorethylene

  •  
  • FDBA

    freeze-dried bone allograft

References

References
1
Funato
A,
Salama
MA,
Ishikawa
T,
Garber
DA,
Salama
H.
Timing, positioning, and sequential staging in esthetic implant therapy: A four-dimensional perspective
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
2007
;
27
:
313
323
.
2
Nevins
M,
Camelo
M,
De Paoli
S,
et al.
A study of the fate of the buccal wall of extraction sockets of teeth with prominent roots
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
2006
;
26
:
19
29
.
3
Schropp
L,
Wenzel
A,
Kostopoulos
L,
Karring
T.
Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: A clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
2003
;
23
:
313
323
.
4
Atwood
DA.
Bone loss of edentulous alveolar ridges
.
J Periodontol
.
1979
;
50
:
11
21
.
5
Carlsson
GE.
Changes in the jaws and facial profile after extractions and prosthetic treatment
.
Trans R Schools Dent (Stockholm)
.
1967
;
12
:
1
29
.
6
McCrea
SJ.
Nasopalatine duct cyst, a delayed complication to successful dental implant placement: Diagnosis and surgical management
.
J Oral Implantol
.
2014
;
40
:
189
195
.
7
Takeshita
K,
Funaki
K,
Jimbo
R,
Takahashi
T.
Nasopalatine duct cyst developed in association with dental implant treatment: A case report and histopathological observation
.
J Oral Maxillofac Pathol
.
2013
;
17
:
319
.
8
Tozum
TF,
Guncu
GN,
Yildirim
YD,
et al.
Evaluation of maxillary incisive canal characteristics related to dental implant treatment with computerized tomography: A clinical multicenter study
.
J Periodontol
.
2012
;
83
:
337
343
.
9
Mardinger
O,
Namani-Sadan
N,
Chaushu
G,
Schwartz-Arad
D.
Morphologic changes of the nasopalatine canal related to dental implantation: A radiologic study in different degrees of absorbed maxillae
.
J Periodontol
.
2008
;
79
:
1659
1662
.
10
Kraut
RA,
Boyden
DK.
Location of incisive canal in relation to central incisor implants
.
Implant Dent
.
1998
;
7
:
221
225
.
11
Guncu
GN,
Yildirim
YD,
Yilmaz
HG,
et al.
Is there a gender difference in anatomic features of incisive canal and maxillary environmental bone?
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2012
;
24
:
1023
1026
.
12
Magennis
P.
Sensory morbidity after palatal flap surgery—fact or fiction?
J Ir Dent Assoc
.
1990
;
36
:
60
61
.
13
Rosenquist
JB,
Nystrom
E.
Occlusion of the incisal canal with bone chips. A procedure to facilitate insertion of implants in the anterior maxilla
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
1992
;
21
:
210
211
.
14
Penarrocha
M,
Carrillo
C,
Uribe
R,
Garcia
B.
The nasopalatine canal as an anatomic buttress for implant placement in the severely atrophic maxilla: A pilot study
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant
.
2009
;
24
:
936
942
.
15
Penarrocha
D,
Candel
E,
Calvo-Guirado
JL,
Canullo
L,
Penarrocha
M.
Implants placed in the nasopalatine canal to rehabilitate severely atrophic maxillae: A retrospective study with long follow-up
.
J Oral Implantol
2014
;
40
:
699
706
.
16
Scher
EL.
Use of the incisive canal as a recipient site for root form implants: Preliminary clinical reports
.
Implant Dent
.
1994
;
3
:
38
41
.
17
Artzi
Z,
Nemcovsky
CE,
Bitlitum
I,
Segal
P.
Displacement of the incisive foramen in conjunction with implant placement in the anterior maxilla without jeopardizing vitality of nasopalatine nerve and vessels: A novel surgical approach
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2000
;
11
:
505
510
.
18
Verardi
S,
Pastagia
J.
Obliteration of the nasopalatine canal in conjunction with horizontal ridge augmentation
.
Compend Contin Educ Dent
.
2012
;
33
:
116
120
,
122
.
19
Spin-Neto
R,
Bedran
TB,
de Paula
WN,
de Freitas
RM,
de Oliveira Ramalho
LT,
Marcantonio
E,
Jr.
Incisive canal deflation for correct implant placement: Case report
.
Implant Dent
.
2009
;
18
:
473
479
.
20
Petrungaro
PS,
Amar
S.
Localized ridge augmentation with allogenic block grafts prior to implant placement: Case reports and histologic evaluations
.
Implant Dent
.
2005
;
14
:
139
148
.
21
Waasdorp
J,
Reynolds
MA.
Allogeneic bone onlay grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation: A systematic review
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2010
;
25
:
525
531
.