Objective Budd-Chiari syndrome is apt to be misdiagnosed,so we explore its diagnosis and treatment by liver transplantation.Methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of two patients who underwent liver transplantation for Budd-Chiari syndrome.One patient was misdiagnosed before the transplantation and another was diagnosed correctly.Results Both patients were grouped to Child C category with decompensated liver cirrhosis.Patient 1 was diagnosed as recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma,but the etiology of liver disease was first unknown then suspected to be schistosomiasis.This patient underwent piggyback liver transplantation.Because there was significant swelling in the perineum and lower extremities after liver transplantation,we re-reviewed the preoperative imaging data and found communicant veins between hepatic veins,which proved that the patient was actually suffered from Budd-Chiari syndrome with hepatic vein and suprahepatic vena cava occlusion before the transplantation.After conservative treatment,the swelling of the lower body was alleviated,however,the long-term survival of the patient would be compromised.Learning from the first case,we found communicant veins between hepatic veins in imaging data of patient 2,resulting in correct diagnosis of Budd-Chiari syndrome with hepatic vein and retrohepatic vena cava diseases before the transplantation,so the patient underwent orthotopic liver transplantation,in which the liver and retrohepatic vena cava were resected,and recovered uneventfully.Liver function was normal during the follow up period of 7 months.Conclusion We should consider the possibility of Budd-Chiari syndrome in patients with unexplained end-stage liver diseases.Communicant veins between the hepatic veins shown in thin CT or MRI image are the characteristic sign for diagnosing Budd-Chiari syndrome.Simultaneously hepatic vein or cava vena disease determines the choice of various technique of liver transplantation.

Alveolar bone is an important anatomic basis for implant-supported denture restoration, and its different degrees of defects determine the choices of bone augmentation surgeries. Therefore, the reconstruction of alveolar bone defects is an important technology in the clinical practice of implant restoration. However, the final reconstructive effect of bone quality, bone quantity and bone morphology is affected by many factors. Clinicians need to master the standardized diagnosis and treatment principles and methods to improve the treatment effect and achieve the goal of both aesthetic and functional reconstruction of both jaws. Based on the current clinical experience of domestic experts and the relevant academic guidelines of foreign counterparts, this expert consensus systematically and comprehensively summarized the augmentation strategies of alveolar bone defects from two aspects: the classification of alveolar bone defects and the appropriate selection of bone augmentation surgeries. The following consensus are reached: alveolar bone defects can be divided into five types (Ⅰ-0, Ⅰ-Ⅰ, Ⅱ-0, Ⅱ-Ⅰ and Ⅱ-Ⅱ) according to the relationship between alveolar bone defects and the expected position of dental implants. A typeⅠ-0 bone defect is a bone defect on one side of the alveolar bone that does not exceed 50% of the expected implant length, and there is no obvious defect on the other side; guided bone regeneration with simultaneous implant implantation is preferred. Type Ⅰ-Ⅰ bone defects refer to bone defects on both sides of alveolar bone those do not exceed 50% of the expected implant length; the first choice is autologous bone block onlay grafting for bone increments with staged implant placement or transcrestal sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant implantation. Type Ⅱ-0 bone defects show that the bone defect on one side of alveolar bone exceeds 50% of the expected implant length, and there’s no obvious defect on the other side; autologous bone block onlay grafting (thickness ≤ 4 mm) or alveolar ridge splitting (thickness > 4 mm) is preferred for bone augmentation with staged implant placement. Type Ⅱ-Ⅰ bone defects indicate that the bone plate defect on one side exceeds 50% of the expected implant length and the bone defect on the other side does not exceed 50% of the expected implant length; autologous bone block onlay grafting or tenting techniques is preferred for bone increments with staged implant implantation. Type Ⅱ-Ⅱ bone defects are bone plates on both sides of alveolar bone those exceed 50% of the expected implant length; guided bone regeneration with rigid mesh or maxillary sinus floor elevation or cortical autologous bone tenting is preferred for bone increments with staged implant implantation. This consensus will provide clinical physicians with appropriate augmentation strategies for alveolar bone defects.