The device was not returned after several requests to send it to anatomage for evaluation.Therefore, the investigation primarily assessed the production records and processes as well as the doctor's treatment plan.The registration between the stone model and patient scan was confirmed to be acceptable per procedural guidelines.The trajectory of the materials were virtually examined and aligned with the doctor's treatment plan.The production record for the guide documents that it passed quality analysis with no adjustments necessary.The doctor's treatment plan was also reviewed to consider potential contributing factors.It shows that the implant was planned partially into the patient's buccal plate, and only 0.3 mm away from the patient's nasopalatine canal.Although the doctor did not provide additional details on the reported issue, it is likely that the buccal plate, and possibly the nasopalatine canal, were pierced during surgery.Therefore, the most likely cause of this adverse event was the doctor's treatment plan which had placed the implant on or near critical structures which would necessitate intervention and grafts.
|