Advertisement

Videoscope-Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgery (VMIS) for Bone Regeneration

Chapter

Abstract

The concept and relevant literature related to minimally invasive periodontal surgery is reviewed. The original MIS procedure for bone regeneration is described as well as the modification of MIS for the MIST and M-MIST procedure. The development and introduction of the videoscope for periodontal procedures are also reviewed. The videoscope’s ability to visualize and treat periodontal defect through much smaller surgical openings than the MIS or MIST techniques has led to the development of the videoscope-assisted minimally invasive surgery (VMIS) approach. The VMIS procedure is reviewed in detail. The results from long-term studies of the VMIS procedure are reported. A procedure for using the videoscope and applying the concepts of VMIS to the problem of regenerating bone in instances of peri-implantitis is also presented. The use of small incisions that produce minimal trauma and preserve most of the blood supply of the periodontal and peri-implant tissues results in improved regenerative results, minimal to no negative esthetic outcomes, and little or no patient discomfort. Minimally invasive procedures are a reliable method to regenerate periodontal tissues.

Keywords

Minimally invasive Videoscope Periodontal surgery Bone regeneration Bone grafts Biologics 

References

  1. 1.
    Wickham J, Fitzpatic JM (1990) Minimally invasive surgery (editorial). Br J Surg 77:721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hunter JG, Sackier JM (1993) Minimally invasive high tech surgery: into the 21st century. In: Hunter JG, Sackier JM (eds) Minimally invasive surgery. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 3–6Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harrel SK, Rees TD (1995) Granulation tissue removal in routine and minimally invasive surgical procedures. Compend Contin Educ Dent 16:960–967PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harrel SK (1998) A minimally invasive surgical approach for bone grafting. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 18:161–169Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harrel SK (1999) A minimally invasive surgical approach for periodontal regeneration: surgical technique and observations. J Periodontol 70:1547–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harrel SK, Wright JM (2000) Treatment of periodontal destruction associated with a cemental tear using minimally invasive surgery. J Periodontol 71:1761–1766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harrel SK, Wilson TG, Nunn ME (2005) Prospective assessment of the use of enamel matrix derivative with minimally invasive surgery. J Periodontol 76:380–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harrel SK, Wilson TG, Nunn ME (2010) Prospective assessment of the use of enamel matrix proteins with minimally invasive surgery: six year results. J Periodontol 81:435–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cortellini P, Tonetti MS (2007) A minimally invasive surgical technique with an enamel matrix derivative in the regenerative treatment of intra-bony defects: a novel approach to limit morbidity. J Clin Periodontol 34:87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harrel SK, Wilson TG Jr, Rivera-Hidalgo F (2013) A videoscope for use in minimally invasive periodontal surgery. J Clin Periodontol 40:868–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harrel SK, Valderrama P, Barnes JB, Blackwell EL (2016) Frequency of root surface microgrooves associated with periodontal destruction. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 36:841–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harrel SK, Nunn ME, Abraham CM, Rivera-Hidalgo F, Shulman JD, Tunnell JC (2017) Videoscope assisted minimally invasive surgery (VMIS): 36-month results. J Periodontol 88:528–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wilson TG Jr, Valderrama P, Burbano M et al (2015) Foreign bodies associated with peri-implantitis human biopsies. J Periodontol 86:9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PeriodontologyTexas A&M College of DentistryDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations