Xenografts and Religious beliefs

Abstract

A 24-year old Hindu female presented with missing central incisors and grossly decayed lateral incisors. Her options were varied - to have a fixed partial denture, removable partial denture, or an implant supported prosthesis/prostheses. From the initial consultation, she decided that once the teeth were extracted she would prefer dental implant placement. She did not want a partial denture because she felt she might have difficulty with self maintenance and was not confident with the aesthetics it might offer. She specifically wanted independent tooth replacement. Upon extraction of the lateral incisors, a full thickness flap was elevated, revealing an anterior maxillary ridge too deficient in bone to accommodate the planned dental implants. It was explained to the patient that bone was lacking in the area and that an additional augmentation procedure would be required. This would entail a bone block harvested from her ramus, fixed in place at the implant site and packed with bone particulate. The patient, though hesitant to have additional and extensive surgery, felt obliged to continue on the clinician's recommendation. The bone block was fixed in place and bone particulate, harvested from the patient's upper jaw, was combined with bovine bone particulate and packed between the block and placed implants. A membrane of porcine pericardium stabilised the graft, the wound was closed and the patient left to heal for a period of 8 months. She was not informed about the fact that some of the components of the graft were of animal origin.