Autogenous bone ring for vertical bone augmentation procedure with simultaneous implant placement: A systematic review of histologic and histomorphometric outcomes in animal studies

The successful use of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partial or complete edentulism requires a sufficient bone support. Whenever rehabilitation in atrophic edentulous areas is needed, bone augmentation procedures are recommended. The aim is to provide adequate amount of supporting bone to achieve a prosthetically guided implant placement. This in turn leads to functional and aesthetic improvements that can be maintained on the long term. Bone grafting of the atrophic site can be performed either prior to implant placement or at the time of implantation. Irrespective of the timing, bone augmentation by means of autogenous bone grafts is a reliable technique, as confirmed by several studies. On the other hand, long-term evidence on the use of autogenous chin block grafts in preprosthetic implant surgery is still scarce. Thus, the purpose of the present case is to report the 20-year clinical and radiological outcome of autogenous chin block grafts used to augment a bilateral defect due to agenesis of the upper lateral incisors for implant placement purposes.

Download Full-text

Alternative Bone Expansion Technique for Implant Placement in Atrophic Edentulous Maxilla and Mandible

Journal of Oral Implantology ◽

10.1563/aaid-joi-d-10-00028 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 37 (4) ◽

pp. 463-471 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Neophytos Demetriades ◽

Jong il Park ◽

Constantinos Laskarides

Keyword(s):

Autogenous Bone ◽

Bone Augmentation ◽

Success Rates ◽

Implant Placement ◽

Alveolar Crest ◽

Atrophic Maxilla ◽

Bone Expansion ◽

Endosseous Implant ◽

Bony Plate ◽

Maxilla And Mandible

Abstract This clinical review is an evaluation of the effectiveness of the split ridge bone augmentation technique performed in the atrophic maxilla and mandible with buccolingual bony defects. The osseointegration success of implant placement in the area of split ridge bone augmentation is assessed and compared to implant success rates indicated in the literature. This evaluation includes 15 patients who were treated with alveolar split ridge bone augmentation at Tufts University School of Dental Medicine. During initial consultation, all patients were diagnosed with a buccolingual bone dimension of 3–5 mm on the edentulous alveolar crest. This bony buccolingual dimension was inadequate for placement of implants of desirable width and correct angulation as dictated by the prosthetic requirements. Crestal split augmentation technique involved a surgical osteotomy that was followed by alveolar crest split and augmentation after buccolingual bony plate expansion, prior to implantation. Implants were placed either immediately or 3 weeks after the initial augmentation. No fixation was used to stabilize the buccal bony cortex after the completion of the augmentation. All patients were placed on periodic follow-ups for a 24-month period postoperatively. Implant success was determined with the use of Buser's Criteria. In total, 33 implants were placed in 15 patients. The overall success rate of osseointegration of the endosseous implants placed in the area of split ridge bone augmentation was found to be 97%. One patient presented with facial bone resorption and implant mobility 4 months after the surgery. The implant was removed and the area was reconstructed with autogenous bone graft and later implanted with an endosseous implant. Our results indicate that the split crest bone augmentation technique is a valid reconstructive procedure that can be used to augment the buccolingual alveolar defect prior to implant placement providing good bone foundation for placement of implants with desirable width in favorable angulation. In comparison to traditional bone grafts techniques, crestal split ridge bone augmentation enables placement of dental implants immediately or 3 weeks after augmentation and eradicates the possible morbidity of the donor sites.

Download Full-text

Clinical outcomes of sinus floor augmentation for implant placement using autogenous bone or bone substitutes: a systematic review

BDJ ◽

10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.971 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 207 (9) ◽

pp. 425-425

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Bone Substitutes ◽

Autogenous Bone ◽

Implant Placement ◽

Sinus Floor Augmentation ◽

Sinus Floor

Download Full-text

Human Studies of Vertical and Horizontal Alveolar Ridge Augmentation Comparing Different Types of Bone Graft Materials: A Systematic Review

Journal of Oral Implantology ◽

10.1563/aaid-joi-d-17-00053 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 44 (1) ◽

pp. 74-84 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Suraj Chavda ◽

Liran Levin

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Bone Graft ◽

Case Series ◽

Human Studies ◽

Autogenous Bone ◽

Alveolar Ridge ◽

Bone Augmentation ◽

Alveolar Ridge Augmentation ◽

Ridge Augmentation ◽

Different Types

Alveolar ridge augmentation can be completed with various types of bone augmentation materials (autogenous, allograft, xenograft, and alloplast). Currently, autogenous bone is labeled as the “gold standard” because of faster healing times and integration between native and foreign bone. No systematic review has currently determined whether there is a difference in implant success between various bone augmentation materials. The purpose of this article was to systematically review comparative human studies of vertical and horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation comparing different types of bone graft materials (autogenous, allograft, xenograft, and alloplast). A MEDLINE search was conducted under the 3 search concepts of bone augmentation, dental implants, and alveolar ridge augmentation. Studies pertaining to socket grafts or sinus lifts were excluded. Case reports, small case series, and review papers were excluded. A bias assessment tool was applied to the final articles. Overall, 219 articles resulted from the initial search, and 9 articles were included for final analysis. There were no discernible differences in implant success between bone augmentation materials. Generally, patients preferred nonautogenous bone sources as there were fewer hospital days, less pain, and better recovery time. Two articles had industrial support; however, conclusions of whether that support influenced the outcomes could not be determined. Future comparative studies should compare nonautogenous bone sources and have longer follow-up times.

Download Full-text