International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Case Report Implant-Prosthetic Restoration of a Patient with Osteogenesis Imperfecta: A Case Report

Marcel Hanisch *, Melanie Maus and Johannes Kleinheinz

Research Unit Rare Diseases with Orofacial Manifestations, Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial , Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, University Hospital Münster, Building W 30, D-48149 Münster, Germany; [email protected] (M.M.); [email protected] (J.K.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-(0)2-518347002; Fax: +49-(0)2-518347184

Abstract: Osteogenesis imperfecta describes a group of genetic disorders that result from a defect in collagen type I and range in severity from a subtle increase in fracture frequency to death in the perinatal period. Osteogenesis imperfecta is mostly caused by mutations in the COL1A1 (17q21.33) and COL1A2 (7q21.3) genes. There have only been a few case reports of implant-prosthetic treatment for patients with osteogenesis imperfecta. These reports indicated that implants and augmentation procedures can be implemented in such patients. However, for patients receiving additional antire- sorptive therapy, cautious approaches should be chosen and the risk of drug-associated osteonecrosis should be considered. The aim of this article is to report on the implant-prosthetic treatment of a patient with type I osteogenesis imperfecta.

Keywords: osteogenesis imperfecta; implant ; oral health-related quality of life; rare diseases  

Citation: Hanisch, M.; Maus, M.; Kleinheinz, J. Implant-Prosthetic 1. Introduction Restoration of a Patient with Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) describes a group of genetic disorders that result from a Osteogenesis Imperfecta: A Case defect in collagen type I [1] and range in severity from a subtle increase in fracture frequency Report. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public to death in the perinatal period [2,3]. The causes of OI primarily include mutations in Health 2021, 18, 4169. https:// the COL1A1 (17q21.33) and COL1A2 (7q21.3) genes [4]. In this regard, OI is divided doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084169 into five clinically distinguishable types, with increased bone fragility and a tendency to develop spontaneous fractures being the predominant features of all types of OI [4]. Academic Editor: Eduardo Bernabé Bisphosphonates (BPs) are the most widely used interventional modes of therapy due to their beneficial effects on bone mineral density [1]. Dental abnormalities in the form of Received: 9 March 2021 dentinogenesis imperfecta are commonly observed in OI patients [5] but do not occur in all Accepted: 13 April 2021 types of OI [4]. Published: 15 April 2021 Orofacial manifestations often associated with OI include DI (Dentinogenesis imper- fecta), posterior open bite (lateral open bite), class III dental and skeletal , Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in anterior and posterior crossbites and impacted teeth [6]. published maps and institutional affil- A classification system based on the severity of bone fragility, as indicated by clin- iations. ical/radiological features, was proposed by Sillence et al. in 1979. Specifically, Sillence et al. proposed four phenotypic categories of OI: OI type I, nondeforming with blue sclera; OI type II, perinatally fatal OI; OI type III, progressively deforming OI; and OI type IV, moderately severe OI [7]. Other types of OI (V and above) have also been described based on specific phenotypic features and genetic findings. In Nosology and Classification of Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Genetic Skeletal Diseases, published in 2015, a phenotypic criterion was adopted to classify Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. the first five types of OI (OI types I–V) [8]. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and The mildest form of OI is considered to be OI type I, in which collagen type I is of conditions of the Creative Commons normal quality but reduced quantity [9]. To date, there have only been a few case reports Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// of implant-prosthetic restorations in patients with OI [10,11]. creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4169. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084169 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4169 2 of 7 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 7 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 7

It is known that immunosuppressed patients have a higher risk of implant loss [12–15]. It is known that immunosuppressed patients have a higher risk of implant loss [12– The aimIt is of known this article that isimmunosuppressed therefore to report onpatients the implant-prosthetic have a higher risk restoration of implant of aloss patient [12– with15]. The OI type aim I.of this article is therefore to report on the implant-prosthetic restoration of a 15].patient The with aim ofOI thistype article I. is therefore to report on the implant-prosthetic restoration of a 2.patient Case Reportwith OI type I. 2. Case Report 2. CaseA 64-year-old Report otherwise healthy female patient presented for the first time in May 2019 forA 64-year-old a consultationotherwise healthy concerning female rare patient diseases presented with oral for involvement.the first time in In May this consultation,2019 Afor 64-year-old a specialty the patient otherwise consultation reported healthy aconcerning history female of OI rarepatient type diseases I. presented Due towith this oralfor underlying the involvement. first time disease, in In May shethis had2019consultation, experienced for a specialty the frequentpatient consultation reported fractures concerning a sincehistory childhood, of rare OI diseasestype most I. Due recentlywith to oral this including involvement. underlying a multiple- disease, In this fragmentconsultation,she had experienced fracture the patient of the frequent humerus reported fractures that a history occurred since of childhood, OI during type aI. fallmostDue at torecently her this home. underlying including disease,a multi- sheple-fragment hadThe experienced patient fracture had receivedfrequent of the humerus alendronicfractures that since acid occurred childhood, p.o. for during many most a years fall recently at to her treat includinghome. theunderlying a multi- disease.ple-fragmentThe Two patient yearsfracture had prior received of the to the humerus alendronic consultation, that acidoccurred this p.o. therapy for during many was a yearsfall replaced at to her treat home. with the denosumab underlying injections.disease.The Twopatient Approximately years had prior received to six the months alendronic consultation prior acid to, thethis p.o. consultation, therapy for many was years the replaced patient’s to treat with the last denosumabunderlying teeth were removeddisease.injections. Two alio Approximately locoyears under prior perioperative,to six the months consultation prior prolonged to, thisthe consultation,therapy antibiosis was with thereplaced plastic patient’s coverage.with last denosumab teeth At were the timeinjections.removed of the alio Approximately consultation, loco under she perioperative, six was months fitted prior with prolon removableto thgede consultation, antibiosis maxillary with the and patient’splastic mandibular coverage. last teeth . At were the Theremovedtime insufficient of the alio consultation, loco support under she ofperioperative, thewas mandibular fitted with prolon removable dentureged antibiosis caused maxillary herwith and discomfort plastic mandibular coverage. and dentures. made At the it difficulttimeThe insufficientof the for consultation, her tosupport eat. Therefore, sheof the was mandibular fitted she wished with dentremovable toure stabilize caused maxillary the her prosthesis discomfort and mandibular with and implants. made dentures. it dif- Theficult insufficientClinically, for her to theeat.support patientTherefore, of presentedthe shemandibular wished with to dent an stabilize edentulousure caused the prosthesis maxillaher discomfort and with mandible implants. and made without it dif- signsficultClinically, offor os her liber. to eat.the The Therefore,patient soft tissues presented she were wished closed with to an andstabilize edentulous inconspicuous, the prosthesis maxilla and withand there mandibleimplants. was no swelling without orsigns redness.Clinically, of os liber. In particular, the The patient soft tissues the presented mandibular were with closed alveolar an and edentulous inconspicuous, process maxilla showed and and pronounced there mandible was no verticalwithout swell- andsignsing or horizontal of redness. os liber. atrophyIn The particular, soft (Figure tissues the1 mandibular).were In addition,closed alveolarand the inconspicuous, patient process exhibited showed and pronouncedthere a discoloration was no vertical swell- of theingand sclerae,or horizontal redness. which atrophyIn particular, is characteristic (Figure the 1) .mandibular In of addition, OI type thealveolar I (Figure patient process2 exhibi). Preoperative showedted a discoloration pronounced panoramic of thevertical view, scle- Figureandrae, horizontalwhich3. is characteristic atrophy (Figure of OI 1) type. In addition, I (Figure the2). Preoperativepatient exhibi panoramicted a discoloration view, Figure of the 3. scle- rae, which is characteristic of OI type I (Figure 2). Preoperative panoramic view, Figure 3.

FigureFigure 1.1. IntraoralIntraoral situationsituation withwith pronouncedpronounced atrophyatrophy ofof thethe mandibularmandibular alveolaralveolar process. process. Figure 1. Intraoral situation with pronounced atrophy of the mandibular .

Figure 2. Characteristic bluish sclerae in a known case of osteogenesis imperfecta. FigureFigure 2.2. CharacteristicCharacteristic bluishbluish scleraesclerae inin aa knownknown casecase ofof osteogenesisosteogenesis imperfecta.imperfecta.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4169 3 of 7 Int. J. Environ.Int. Res. J. Environ.Public Health Res. Public2021, 18Health, x FOR 2021 PEER, 18, xREVIEW FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 7 3 of 7

Figure 3. PreoperativeFigure 3. Preoperative panoramicFigure 3. view.panoramicPreoperative view. panoramic view.

Following FollowingaFollowing risk assessment, a a risk risk assessment, assessment,the patient the was the patient offered patient was the was offered insertion offered the of the insertion two insertion interforaminal of two of two interforaminal interforam- implants toimplantsinal stabilize implants to the stabilize prosth to stabilize esis.the prosth Augmentation the prosthesis.esis. Augmentation measures Augmentation weremeasures not measures used were due not were to used the not dueun- used to the due un- to derlying diseasederlyingthe underlying and disease the patient’s diseaseand the history andpatient’s the of patient’sdrhistoryug therapy of history drug with therapy of alendronic drug with therapy alendronic acid withand deno- alendronicacid and deno- acid sumab. sumab.and denosumab. Under localUnderUnder local local anesthesia anesthesiaand perioperative and and perioperative perioperative prolonged prolonged prolongedantibiosis (clindamycinantibiosis (clindamycin 600 mg 600 mg 1-1-1) due 1-1-1)to1-1-1) penicillin due due to to intolerancepenicillin penicillin intolerance intolerance for seven da for forys seven seven in case da days ofys knownin in case case penicillinof of known known intolerance,penicillin penicillin intolerance, intolerance, beginning beginningonbeginning the day on of on surgery),the the day day of a ofsurgery), crestal surgery), incision a crestal a crestal was incision made incision waswithout wasmade relief made without incisions without relief from reliefincisions incisions from regions 35 regionstofrom 45. After regions 35 to bilateral 45. 35 After to 45.exposure bilateral After of bilateralexposure the mental exposure of the nerve, mental of two the nerve, narrow mental two areas nerve, narrow were two areas iden- narrow were iden- areas tified in regionstifiedwere in32 identified regionsand 44, 32 in which regionsand 44, the in 32 whichinse andrtion 44, the inof inse whichtwortion tissue-level the of insertiontwo tissue-level implants of two (Straumann implants tissue-level (Straumann implants ® Standard PlusStandard(Straumann®, Basel, Plus Switzerland, Standard®, Basel, PlusSwitzerland, SLActive, Basel, Switzerland,3.3SLActive mm × 103.3 mm) SLActive mm was× 10 3.3possiblemm) mm was× without 10possible mm) thewas without possible the use of augmentationusewithout of augmentation the measures use of augmentation (Figuremeasures 4). (Figure measures 4). (Figure4).

Figure 4. PostoperativeFigureFigure 4. 4. PostoperativePostoperative panoramic viewpanoramic panoramic after the view view insertion after after the the of insertion insertiontwo interforaminal of two interforaminal tissue-level tissue-level implants. implants.

The patient’sTheThe postoperative patient’s patient’s postoperative postoperative wound healing wound wound was healing healing unremarkable, was was unremarkable, unremarkable, and the sutures and and the the were sutures sutures were were removed sevenremovedremoved days seven seven after dayssurgery. days after after Furthermore, surgery. surgery. Furthermore, Furthermore, there were there thereno occurrences were were no occurrences occurrences of dehiscence of dehiscence dehiscence or signs ofor ordrug-associated signs signs of drug-associated osteonecrosis. osteonecrosis.osteonecrosis. After a healing AfterAfter aperiod a healing healing of period threeperiod months, of of three three months,uncov- months, uncovery uncov- ery was performederywas was performed performed (Figure (Figure 5) so(Figure that5) soprosthetic 5) that so that prosthetic prostheticrestoration restoration restoration could be could carried could be carried beout carried with out loca- out with with locators loca- tors (Figuretors(Figure 6) two(Figure6 )weeks two 6) weekstwo later. weeks later. later.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4169 4 of 7 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 7 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 7

Figure 5. Healing caps after uncovery. FigureFigure 5. 5.Healing Healing capscaps afterafter uncovery.uncovery.

Figure 6. Prosthetic restoration with locators. FigureFigure 6. 6.Prosthetic Prosthetic restorationrestoration with with locators. locators. Since the surgery, the patient has attended regular follow-ups for one year and ex- SinceSince thethe surgery, surgery, the the patient patient has has attended attended regular regular follow-ups follow-ups for for one one year year and and exhib- ex- hibited no signs of drug-associated osteonecrosis or peri-implant infection (Figures 7 and itedhibited no signsno signs of drug-associated of drug-associated osteonecrosis osteonecrosis or peri-implant or peri-implant infection infection(Figures (Figures7 and 7 8and). 8). The patient tested negative for at both implants, with probing The8). The patient patient tested tested negative negative for bleeding for bleeding on probing on probing at both at implants, both implants, with probing with probing pocket pocket depths (4-point measurements) of 2-1-3-2 at region 32 and 2-2-2-1 at region 42. Oral depthspocket (4-pointdepths (4-point measurements) measurements) of 2-1-3-2 of 2-1-3- at region2 at region 32 and 32 2-2-2-1 and 2-2-2-1 at region at region 42. Oral 42. Oral hy- hygiene was very good. Radiological control was omitted given the patient’s good clinical gienehygiene was was very very good. good. Radiological Radiological control control was was omitted omitted given given the the patient’s patient’s good good clinical clinical parameters. The patient herself described a significantly improved prosthesis fit and an parameters.parameters. TheThe patientpatient herselfherself describeddescribed aa significantlysignificantly improvedimproved prosthesisprosthesis fitfit andand an an associated increase in quality of life. associatedassociated increaseincrease in in quality quality of of life. life.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4169 5 of 7 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 7 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 7

FigureFigure 7. 7.Final Final restaurationrestauration afterafter one one year. year. The The upper upper jaw jaw was was restored restored with with a a full full denture. denture. Figure 7. Final restauration after one year. The upper jaw was restored with a full denture.

Figure 8. Clinical situation after one year. FigureFigure 8.8. ClinicalClinical situationsituation afterafter oneone year.year. 3. Discussion 3.3. DiscussionDiscussion To date, only a few case reports have been published on implant-prosthetic restora- ToTo date, date, only only a a few few case case reports reports have have been been published published on implant-prostheticon implant-prosthetic restorations restora- tions in patients with OI [10,16–22]. A Norwegian study reported a 95.7% survival rate of intions patients in patients with with OI [10 OI,16 [10,16–22].–22]. A Norwegian A Norwegian study study reported reported a 95.7%a 95.7% survival survival rate rate ofof implants in patients with OI 25–135 months after prosthetic loading [22]. Successful aug- implantsimplants in patients patients with with OI OI 25–135 25–135 months months after after prosthetic prosthetic loading loading [22]. [22 Successful]. Successful aug- mentative procedures using autologous retromolar bone, corticospongous grafts of the augmentativementative procedures procedures using using autologous autologous retrom retromolarolar bone, bone, corticospongous corticospongous grafts ofof thethe iliac crest and synthetic substitutes have also been reported [10,11,16–18]. Thus, although iliaciliac crestcrest andand syntheticsynthetic substitutessubstitutes havehave alsoalso beenbeen reportedreported [[10,11,16–18].10,11,16–18]. Thus,Thus, althoughalthough the relevant data remain limited, the use of implants and augmentative measures in pa- thethe relevantrelevant data data remain remain limited, limited, the the use use of implantsof implants and and augmentative augmentative measures measures in patients in pa- tients with OI seems to be safe and achievable in principle, without any major limitations. withtients OI with seems OI seems to be safe to be and safe achievable and achievable in principle, in principle, without without any major any major limitations. limitations. As in the case report presented herein, antiresorptive therapy with BPs or deno- AsAs inin the the case case report report presented presented herein, herein, antiresorptive antiresorptive therapy therapy with with BPs or BPs denosumab or deno- sumab often accompanies OI and must be taken into account. In particular, BPs represent oftensumab accompanies often accompanies OI and must OI and be must taken be into taken account. into account. In particular, In particular, BPs represent BPs represent the most the most widely used interventional therapy for OI due to their beneficial effects on bone widelythe most used widely interventional used interventional therapy for therapy OI due fo tor OI their due beneficial to their beneficial effects on effects bone mineralon bone mineral density [1]. The currently available literature indicates that children and young densitymineral [ 1density]. The currently [1]. The availablecurrently literatureavailable indicatesliterature that indicates children that and children young adultsand young with adults with OI and concomitant BP therapy are not at risk for drug-associated osteonecro- OIadults and with concomitant OI and concomitant BP therapy BP are therapy not at risk are fornot drug-associated at risk for drug-associated osteonecrosis osteonecro-[23–26]. However,sis [23–26]. drug-associated However, drug-associated and implant-associated and implant-associated osteonecrosis osteonecrosis was reported was in a reported75-year- sis [23–26]. However, drug-associated and implant-associated osteonecrosis was reported oldin afemale 75-year-old patient female with patient OI who with had OI received who had BP received therapy BP with therapy alendronic with alendronic acid for acid ten in a 75-year-old female patient with OI who had received BP therapy with alendronic acid yearsfor ten [27 years]. Given [27]. thatGiven the that patient the patient in the presentin the present case was case of was a comparable of a comparable age and age had and for ten years [27]. Given that the patient in the present case was of a comparable age and alsohad beenalso treatedbeen treated with alendronicwith alendronic acid for acid several for several years, years, we considered we considered the risk the of risk drug- of had also been treated with alendronic acid for several years, we considered the risk of

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4169 6 of 7

associated osteonecrosis and discussed and weighed the potential consequences in detail with the patient. The alternative to the surgical intervention would have been to leave the purely mucosa-supported denture in place. In principle, however, prior studies have shown a clear correlation between denture-related pressure points and the occurrence of osteonecro- sis [28]. The reduction in mucosal stress associated with an implant-retained prosthesis can therefore reduce the risk of osteonecrosis caused by pressure points [28]. Consequently, restoration with a higher number of implants and a different prosthetic solution (e.g., a bar restoration) could have achieved further reductions in mucosal load in the present case. Although the literature has reported successful cases of augmentation and implant placement in patients with BP treatment histories and low-risk profiles [29], we decided against this strategy due to the significantly reduced bone supply of the patient and the concomitant need for prior augmentation. However, the risks of osteonecrosis remain and should not be underestimated [30]. Biomaterials may be a helpful option in the future for reduced bone supply [31,32].

4. Conclusions Implants and augmentative measures can be implemented in patients with OI. For patients who have received additional antiresorptive therapy, cautious procedures should be chosen and the risk of drug-associated osteonecrosis should be considered.

Author Contributions: M.H., M.M. and J.K. participated in the literature review, design and drafting of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research did not receive any specific grants from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Commission of Westphalia-Lippe and the Westphalia Wilhelms University Münster (2021-231-f-N). Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from the patient to publish this case report. Data Availability Statement: The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are available from the Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Münster, Germany. Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the patient for agreeing to the publication of this case report. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Abbreviations

DI dentinogenesis imperfecta OI osteogenesis imperfecta BP bisphosphonate

References 1. Tournis, S.; Dede, A.D. Osteogenesis imperfecta—A clinical update. Metabolism 2018, 80, 27–37. [CrossRef][PubMed] 2. Van Dijk, F.S.; Byers, P.H.; Dalgleish, R.; Malfait, F.; Maugeri, A.; Rohrbach, M.; Symoens, S.; Sistermans, E.A.; Pals, G. EMQN best practice guidelines for the laboratory diagnosis of osteogenesis imperfecta. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2012, 20, 11–19. 3. Rauch, F.; Glorieux, F.H. Osteogenesis imperfecta. Lancet 2004, 24, 1377–1385. [CrossRef] 4. Zugegriffen. Available online: www.orpha.net (accessed on 28 October 2020). 5. Trejo, P.; Rauch, F. Osteogenesis imperfecta in children and adolescents—new developments in diagnosis and treatment. Osteoporos. Int. 2016, 27, 3427–3437. [CrossRef][PubMed] 6. Rizkallah, J.; Schwartz, S.; Rauch, F.; Glorieux, F.; Vu, D.-D.; Muller, K.; Retrouvey, J.-M. Evaluation of the severity of in children affected by osteogenesis imperfecta with the peer assessment rating and discrepancy indexes. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2013, 143, 336–341. [CrossRef] 7. Sillence, D.O.; Senn, A.; Danks, D.M. Genetic heterogeneity in osteogenesis imperfecta. J. Med. Genet. 1979, 16, 101–116. [CrossRef] Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4169 7 of 7

8. Bonafe, L.; Cormier-Daire, V.; Hall, C.; Lachman, R.; Mortier, G.; Mundlos, S.; Nishimura, G.; Sangiorgi, L.; Savarirayan, R.; Sillence, D.; et al. Nosology and classification of genetic skeletal disorders: 2015 revision. Am. J. Med. Genet A 2015, 167A, 2869–2892. [CrossRef] 9. Marini, J.C.; Forlino, A.; Bächinger, H.P.; Bishop, N.J.; Byers, P.H.; De Paepe, A.; Fassier, F.; Fratzl-Zelman, N.; Kozloff, K.M.; Krakow, D.; et al. Osteogenesis imperfecta. Nat. Rev. Dis. Prim. 2017, 3, 1–19. [CrossRef] 10. Prabhu, S.S.; Fortier, K.; May, M.C.; Reebye, U.N. Implant therapy for a patient with osteogenesis imperfecta type I: Review of literature with a case report. Int. J. Implant. Dent. 2018, 4, 36. [CrossRef] 11. Lee, C.Y.S.; Ertel, S.K. Bone Graft Augmentation and Treatment in a Patient with Osteogenesis Imperfecta: Review of the Literature with a Case Report. Implant. Dent. 2003, 12, 291–295. [CrossRef] 12. Gherlone, E.F.; Capparé, P.; Tecco, S.; Polizzi, E.; Pantaleo, G.; Gastaldi, G.; Grusovin, M.G. A Prospective Longitudinal Study on Implant Prosthetic Rehabilitation in Controlled HIV-Positive Patients with 1-Year Follow-Up: The Role of CD4+ Level, Smoking Habits, and . Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2015, 18, 955–964. [CrossRef] 13. Zhang, C.; Zhang, T.; Geng, T.; Wang, X.; Lin, K.; Wang, P. Dental Implants Loaded with Bioactive Agents Promote Osseointegra- tion in Osteoporosis: A Review. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2021, 9.[CrossRef] 14. D’Orto, B.; Tetè, G.; Polizzi, E. Osseointegrated dental implants supporting fixed prostheses in patients affected by Sjögren’s Sindrome: A narrative review. J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents. 2020, 34 (Suppl. 3), 89–91. [PubMed] 15. Halpern, L.R.; Adams, D.R. Medically Complex Dental Implant Patients: Controversies About Systemic Disease and Dental Implant Success/Survival. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 2021, 65, 1–19. [CrossRef] 16. Wannfors, K.; Johansson, C.; Donath, K. Augmentation of the mandible via a “tent-pole” procedure and implant treatment in a patient with type III osteogenesis imperfecta: Clinical and histologic considerations. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2010, 24, 1144–1148. 17. Payne, M.; Postlethwaite, K.R.; Smith, D.G.; Nohl, F.S. Implant-supported rehabilitation of an edentate patient with osteogenesis imperfecta: A case report. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2008, 23, 947–952. 18. Binger, T.; Rucker, M.; Spitzer, W. Dentofacial rehabilitation by osteodistraction, augmentation and implantation despite osteogenesis imperfecta. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2006, 35, 559–562. [CrossRef][PubMed] 19. Zola, M.B. Staged sinus augmentation and implant placement in a patient with osteogenesis imperfecta. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2000, 58, 443–447. [CrossRef] 20. Friberg, B. Brånemark System Implants and Rare Disorders: A Report of Six Cases. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2013, 33, 139–148. [CrossRef] 21. Prabhu, N.; Duckmanton, N.; Stevenson, A.R.; Cameron, A. The placement of osseointegrated dental implants in a patient with type IV B osteogenesis imperfecta: A 9-year follow-up. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endodontol. 2007, 103, 349–354. [CrossRef][PubMed] 22. Jensen, J.L.; Brox, H.T.; Storhaug, K.; Ambjørnsen, E.; Støvne, S.A.; Bjørnland, T. Dental implants in patients with osteogenesis imperfecta: A retrospective and prospective study with review of the literature. Oral Surg. 2011, 4, 105–114. [CrossRef] 23. Contaldo, M.; Luzzi, V.; Ierardo, G.; Raimondo, E.; Boccellino, M.; Ferati, K.; Bexheti-Ferati, A.; Inchingolo, F.; Di Domenico, M.; Serpico, R.; et al. Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws and dental surgery procedures in children and young people with osteogenesis imperfecta: A systematic review. J. Stomatol. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020, 121, 556–562. [CrossRef][PubMed] 24. Malmgren, B.; Aström, E.; Söderhäll, S.; Malmgren, B. No osteonecrosis in jaws of young patients with osteogenesis imperfecta treated with bisphosphonates. J. Oral Pathol. Med. 2008, 37, 196–200. [CrossRef][PubMed] 25. Schwartz, S.; Joseph, C.; Iera, D.; Vu, D.-D. Bisphosphonates, osteonecrosis, osteogenesis imperfecta and dental extractions: A case series. J. Can. Dent. Assoc. 2008, 74, 537–544. 26. Maines, E.; Monti, E.; Doro, F.; Morandi, G.; Cavarzere, P.; Antoniazzi, F. Children and adolescents treated with neridronate for osteogenesis imperfecta show no evidence of any osteonecrosis of the jaw. J. Bone Miner. Metab. 2012, 30, 434–438. [CrossRef] 27. Rawal, S.Y.; Hilal, G. Osteonecrosis and spontaneous exfoliation of dental implants associated with oral bisphosphonate therapy: A case report. Aust. Dent. J. 2019, 65, 100–103. [CrossRef][PubMed] 28. Niibe, K.; Ouchi, T.; Iwasaki, R.; Nakagawa, T.; Horie, N. Osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with dental prostheses being treated with bisphosphonates or denosumab. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2015, 59, 3–5. [CrossRef] 29. Khoury, F.; Hidajat, H. Extensive Autogenous Bone Augmentation and Implantation in Patients Under Bisphosphonate Treatment: A 15-Case Series. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2016, 36, 9–18. [CrossRef] 30. Granate-Marques, A.; Polis-Yanes, C.; Seminario-Amez, M.; Jane-Salas, E.; Lopez-Lopez, J. Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw associated with implant and regenerative treatments: Systematic review. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal 2019, 24, e195–e203. [CrossRef] 31. Crespi, R.; Capparé, P.; Romanos, G.E.; Mariani, E.; Benasciutti, E.; Gherlone, E. Corticocancellous porcine bone in the healing of human extraction sockets: Combining histomorphometry with osteoblast gene expression profiles in vivo. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2011, 26, 866–872. 32. Matichescu, A.; Ardelean, L.C.; Rusu, L.-C.; Craciun, D.; Bratu, E.A.; Babucea, M.; Leretter, M. Advanced Biomaterials and Techniques for Oral Tissue Engineering and Regeneration—A Review. Materials 2020, 13, 5303. [CrossRef][PubMed]