Because this event resulted in medical/surgical intervention to preclude permanent damage to a body structure or permanent impairment of a body function, it must be presumed that the malfunction would be likely to cause or contribute to a serious injury should it recur.As such, this event meets the definition of a reportable event per 21 cfr part 803.We checked the planning files for this case and found that the prosthesis was not of optimal quality.A big part of the prosthesis has been adapted after the scan was taken, since it is clearly filled up where teeth 32-42 are still present in the scan.The resulting prosthesis might therefore have had stability issues, which can in turn have led to the guide ending up in an incorrect place and therefore not correctly transferring the implant positions in the patient's mouth.Normally, the customer would have received a warning about this during the production process, so that they could assess whether they wished to proceed with this case or to have another scan taken.Unfortunately, this warning was omitted due to a human error.
|
It was reported that while using a surgiguide to place four implants, at implant 43 (#27) there was a huge fenestration of the cortical lingual bone.The surgery could not be completed.A new surgery will be performed in two months.Additional information has been requested, but is not yet available.
|