Objective; The incidence of lingual bone perforation during implant placement is lower than that of buccal bone perforation and is rarely reported. This case describes an anatomy related implant complication of a 53-year-old lady during implant placement of 36. Case report; A 3.4mm implant width and 9.5mm implant length with adjunct concentrated growth factor (CGF) were planned for this patient. A full thickness flap was elevated on the edentulous ridge of missing tooth 36. By utilizing the individually constructed surgical stent, the surgery was initiated with a pilot marking drill. The drill angulation was evaluated and an intraoral periapical radiograph was taken. Prior to the implant placement, a careful inspection was conducted on the implant site preparation. However, a lingual bone fenestration was observed. Due to potential complications associated with lingual bone perforation, implant placement was deferred, and a guided bone regeneration procedure was performed. Prior to the flap approximation, a layer of CGF membrane was positioned. Afterwards, the patient was recalled regularly up to one-year post-operative. Following one-year of follow-up, the surgical area healed uneventfully with radiographic evidence of bone formation and maturation. Conclusion; Although a case can be relatively straightforward with proper surgical planning, clinicians need to always be prepared for the unexpected event.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Noh et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: