scholarly journals Collagen vs expanded polytetrafluorethylene membranes during guided-bone regeneration simultaneous with implant placement – a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 59
Author(s):  
Sales Antônio Barbosa Junior ◽  
Angélica Maroli ◽  
Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira ◽  
Atais Bacchi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Implant Placement

Objetivo: Esta revisão sistemática avaliou a influência do tipo de membrana (colágeno reabsorvível ou politetrafluoretileno expandido não reabsorvível; e-PTFE) na regeneração óssea guia associada à colocação do implante. Métodos: Qualquer tipo de estudo clínico ou revisão de literatura foi pesquisada nas bases de dados MEDLINE / PubMed e Cochrane. Dois revisores independentes examinaram títulos / resumos de artigos e o texto completo de estudos potencialmente elegíveis. Quando os dados estavam disponíveis, a meta-análise pareada foi realizada usando modelo estatístico aleatório. Resultados: Nove estudos preencheram os critérios de inclusão, considerando 685 implantes em 360 pacientes. A regeneração óssea vertical não diferiu com o uso das duas membranas em 8 dos 9 estudos incluídos. Meta-análise não mostrou maior ganho ósseo vertical ou perda óssea vertical após a regeneração com qualquer uma das membranas. Os resultados mostraram uma tendência de maior ganho ósseo na regeneração óssea guiada horizontal com membranas de e-PTFE não reabsorvíveis (relatadas por 2 de 3 estudos). Todos os estudos mostraram claramente que ambas as membranas foram eficazes no aumento do volume ósseo. Não houve uma tendência clara de qualquer uma das duas membranas em causar mais complicações. Conclusão: o colágeno reabsorvível e as membranas não-reabsorvíveis de PTFE-e são igualmente eficazes na regeneração óssea guiada vertical; no entanto, a regeneração óssea guiada horizontal parece se beneficiar com o uso das membranas não reabsorvíveis. Ambas as membranas mostraram-se eficazes na regeneração óssea guiada e similares em relação às complicações.

scholarly journals The Use of Titanium Mesh in Guided Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Briguglio ◽  
D. Falcomatà ◽  
S. Marconcini ◽  
L. Fiorillo ◽  
R. Briguglio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Bone Substitutes ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Autogenous Bone ◽  
Titanium Mesh ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Prosthetic Rehabilitation ◽  
Implant Placement

Several techniques have been proposed for bone regeneration in patients with atrophic ridges. Nowadays, GBR represents the gold standard, and it allows obtaining sufficient bone volumes for a correct implant-prosthetic rehabilitation. Our goal is to perform a systematic review of the literature on the use of titanium meshes in GBR in order to evaluate the reliability of the procedure, the regeneration obtained, and the failures. Furthermore, we will evaluate the success and survival rate of the inserted implants. The selected articles concern vertical and/or horizontal regeneration of the alveolar ridge using titanium grids, in association or not with biomaterials, before and simultaneously with implant placement. Six articles were selected for the present review, including a total of 139 patients, 156 sites, and 303 implants. Titanium grids in combination with autogenous bone were used in 2 cases, 5 in combination with a mixture of autogenous bone and bone substitutes. The overall survival and success rates of implants were 98.3% and 85.25%, respectively. In conclusion, our review shows how the use of titanium mesh represented a predictable method for the rehabilitation of complex atrophic sites.

Guided bone regeneration for immediate non-submerged implant placement using bioabsorbable materials in Beagle dogs

1998 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 303-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gérard Brunel ◽  
Edmond Benqué ◽  
Frédéric Elharar ◽  
Catherine Sansac ◽  
Jean François Duffort ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Beagle Dogs ◽  
Implant Placement

scholarly journals Management of Retrograde Peri-Implantitis Using an Air-Abrasive Device, Er,Cr:YSGG Laser, and Guided Bone Regeneration

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolaos Soldatos ◽  
Georgios E. Romanos ◽  
Michelle Michaiel ◽  
Ali Sajadi ◽  
Nikola Angelov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Bone Density ◽  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Etiologic Factor ◽  
Ridge Preservation ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Case Description ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Maxillary Molar

Background. The placement of an implant in a previously infected site is an important etiologic factor contributing to implant failure. The aim of this case report is to present the management of retrograde peri-implantitis (RPI) in a first maxillary molar site, 2 years after the implant placement. The RPI was treated using an air-abrasive device, Er,Cr:YSGG laser, and guided bone regeneration (GBR). Case Description. A 65-year-old Caucasian male presented with a draining fistula associated with an implant at tooth #3. Tooth #3 revealed periapical radiolucency two years before the implant placement. Tooth #3 was extracted, and a ridge preservation procedure was performed followed by implant rehabilitation. A periapical radiograph (PA) showed lack of bone density around the implant apex. The site was decontaminated with an air-abrasive device and Er,Cr:YSGG laser, and GBR was performed. The patient was seen every two weeks until suture removal, followed by monthly visits for 12 months. The periapical X-rays, from 6 to 13 months postoperatively, showed increased bone density around the implant apex, with no signs of residual clinical or radiographic pathology and probing depths ≤4 mm. Conclusions. The etiology of RPI in this case was the placement of an implant in a previously infected site. The use of an air-abrasive device, Er,Cr:YSGG, and GBR was utilized to treat this case of RPI. The site was monitored for 13 months, and increased radiographic bone density was noted.

scholarly journals Can the Macrogeometry of Dental Implants Influence Guided Bone Regeneration in Buccal Bone Defects? Histomorphometric and Biomechanical Analysis in Beagle Dogs

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Fernández-Domínguez ◽  
Victor Ortega-Asensio ◽  
Elena Fuentes Numancia ◽  
Juan Aragoneses ◽  
Horia Barbu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Animal Study ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Implant Stability ◽  
Beagle Dogs ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Cervical Portion

The aim of this experimental animal study was to assess guided bone regeneration (GBR) and implant stability (ISQ) around two dental implants with different macrogeometries. Forty eight dental implants were placed within six Beagle dogs. The implants were divided into two groups (n = 24 per group): G1 group implants presented semi-conical macrogeometry, a low apical self-tapping portion, and an external hexagonal connection (whereby the cervical portion was bigger than the implant body). G2 group implants presented parallel walls macrogeometry, a strong apical self-tapping portion, and an external hexagonal connection (with the cervical portion parallel to the implant body). Buccal (mouth-related) defects of 2 mm (c2 condition) and 5 mm (c3 condition) were created. For the control condition with no defect (c1), implants were installed at crestal bone level. Eight implants in each group were installed under each condition. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured immediately after implant placement, and on the day of sacrifice (3 months after the implant placement). Histological and histomorphometric procedures and analysis were performed to assess all samples, measuring crestal bone loss (CBL) and bone-to-implant contact (BIC). The data obtained were compared with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. The ISQ results showed a similar evolution between the groups at the two evaluation times, although higher values were found in the G1 group under all conditions. Within the limitations of this animal study, it may be concluded that implant macrogeometry is an important factor influencing guided bone regeneration in buccal defects. Group G1 showed better buccal bone regeneration (CBL) and BIC % at 3 months follow up, also parallel collar design can stimulate bone regeneration more than divergent collar design implants. The apical portion of the implant, with a stronger self-tapping feature, may provide better initial stability, even in the presence of a bone defect in the buccal area.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document