scholarly journals Vertical Bone Augmentation of the Posterior Mandible with Simultaneous Implant Placement Utilizing Atelo-Collagen-Derived Bone Grafts and Membranes

2018 ◽  
Vol 04 (02) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ferdinando D Avenia ◽  
Richard Miron
Keyword(s):  
Bone Grafts ◽  
Bone Augmentation ◽  
Implant Placement

scholarly journals Horizontal Bone Augmentation and Simultaneous Implant Placement using Xenogeneic Bone Rings Technique: A Retrospective Clinical Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yude Ding ◽  
LianFei Wang ◽  
Kuiwei Su ◽  
Jinxing Gao ◽  
Xiao Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Alveolar Bone ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Bone Grafts ◽  
Bone Defects ◽  
Bone Augmentation ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Retrospective Clinical Study ◽  
One Year ◽  
The One

Abstract Objectives: This study evaluated the use of bone ring technique with xenogeneic bone grafts in treating horizontal alveolar bone defects. Material and methods: In total, 11 patients in need of horizontal bone augmentation treatment before implant placement were included in this retrospective study. All patients received simultaneous bone augmentation surgery and implant placement with xenogeneic bone ring grafts. We evaluated the postoperative efficacy of the bone ring technique with xenogeneic bone grafts using radiographical and clinical parameters. Results: Survival rates of implants were 100%. Cone-beam computed tomography revealed that the xenogeneic bone ring graft had significantly sufficient horizontal bone augmentation below the implant neck platform to 0 mm, 1mm, 2mm, and 3mm. It could also provide an excellent peri-implant tissue condition during the one-year follow-up after loading. Conclusion: The bone ring technique with xenogeneic bone ring graft could increase and maintain horizontal bone mass in the region of the implant neck platforms in serious horizontal bone defects.

scholarly journals Horizontal bone augmentation and simultaneous implant placement using xenogeneic bone rings technique: a retrospective clinical study

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yude Ding ◽  
Lianfei Wang ◽  
Kuiwei Su ◽  
Jinxing Gao ◽  
Xiao Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Alveolar Bone ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Bone Grafts ◽  
Bone Defects ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Clinical Parameters ◽  
Bone Augmentation ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Retrospective Clinical Study

AbstractThis study evaluated the use of bone ring technique with xenogeneic bone grafts in treating horizontal alveolar bone defects. In total, 11 patients in need of horizontal bone augmentation treatment before implant placement were included in this retrospective study. All patients received simultaneous bone augmentation surgery and implant placement with xenogeneic bone ring grafts. We evaluated the postoperative efficacy of the bone ring technique with xenogeneic bone grafts using radiographical and clinical parameters. Survival rates of implants were 100%. Cone-beam computed tomography revealed that the xenogeneic bone ring graft had significantly sufficient horizontal bone augmentation below the implant neck platform to 0 mm, 1 mm, 2 mm, and 3 mm. It could also provide an excellent peri-implant tissue condition during the 1-year follow-up after loading. The bone ring technique with xenogeneic bone ring graft could increase and maintain horizontal bone mass in the region of the implant neck platforms in serious horizontal bone defects.

scholarly journals Simultaneous implant placement with autogenous onlay bone grafts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Guoqiang Ma ◽  
Chaoan Wu ◽  
Miaoting Shao
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Bone Grafts ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Analysis Model ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Delayed Implant Placement ◽  
Onlay Grafts

AbstractSeveral authors have suggested that implants can be placed simultaneously with onlay bone grafts without affecting outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to answer the following clinical questions: (1) What are the outcomes of implants placed simultaneously with autogenous onlay bone grafts? And (2) is there a difference in outcomes between simultaneous vs delayed placement of implants with autogenous onlay bone grafts? Databases of PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched up to 15 November 2020. Data on implant survival was extracted from all the included studies (single arm and comparative) to calculate point estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and pooled using the DerSimonian–Laird meta-analysis model. We also compared implant survival rates between the simultaneous and delayed placement of implants with data from comparative studies. Nineteen studies were included. Five of them compared simultaneous and delayed placement of implants. Dividing the studies based on follow-up duration, the pooled survival of implant placed simultaneously with onlay grafts after <2.5 years of follow-up was 93.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 97.4%) and after 2.5–5 years was 86% (95% CI 78.6 to 91.1%). Implant survival was found to be 85.8% (95% CI 79.6 to 90.3%) with iliac crest grafts and 95.7% (95% CI 83.9 to 93.0%) with intra-oral grafts. Our results indicated no statistically significant difference in implant survival between simultaneous and delayed placement (OR 0.43, 95% 0.07, 2.49, I2=59.04%). Data on implant success and bone loss were limited. Data indicates that implants placed simultaneously with autogenous onlay grafts have a survival rate of 93.1% and 86% after a follow-up of <2.5 years and 2.5–5years respectively. A limited number of studies indicate no significant difference in implant survival between the simultaneous and delayed placement of implants with onlay bone grafts. There is a need for randomized controlled trials comparing simultaneous and delayed implant placement to provide robust evidence.

scholarly journals A case series of profilometric changes in two implant placement protocols at periodontally compromised non-molar sites

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kwantae Noh ◽  
Daniel S. Thoma ◽  
Jung-Chul Park ◽  
Dong-Woon Lee ◽  
Seung-Yun Shin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Tooth Extraction ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Tissue Level ◽  
Ridge Preservation ◽  
Bone Augmentation ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Alveolar Ridge Preservation ◽  
Tissue Changes ◽  
Facial Area

AbstractInformation regarding profilometric changes at a soft tissue level following implant placement with different protocols is insufficient. Therefore, this study aimed to comparatively investigate the profilometric tissue changes with respect to late implant placement following alveolar ridge preservation (LP/ARP) and early implantation (EP) in periodontally compromised non-molar extraction sites. Sixteen patients were randomly assigned to the following groups: implant placement 4 months post-ARP (group LP/ARP) and tooth extraction and implant placement 4–8 weeks post-extraction (group EP). Dental impressions were obtained immediately after final prosthesis insertion and at 3, 6, and 12 months. At the time of implant placement, bone augmentation was performed in the majority of the patients. Profilometric changes of the tissue contour were minimal between the final prosthesis insertion and 12 months in the mid-facial area (0.04–0.35 mm in group LP/ARP, 0.04–0.19 mm in group EP). The overall tissue volume increased in both groups (1.70 mm3 in group LP/ARP, 0.96 mm3 in group EP). In conclusion, LP/ARP and EP led to similar stability of the peri-implant tissue contour between the final prosthesis insertion and at 12 months. Moreover, the change of peri-implant tissue on the soft tissue level was minimal in both modalities.

Efficacy of Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (4) ◽  
pp. 402-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Avila-Ortiz ◽  
M. Gubler ◽  
M. Romero-Bustillos ◽  
C.L. Nicholas ◽  
M.B. Zimmerman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tooth Extraction ◽  
Alveolar Bone ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Ridge Preservation ◽  
Alveolar Ridge ◽  
Bone Augmentation ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Alveolar Ridge Preservation

Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) therapy is indicated to attenuate the physiologic resorptive events that occur as a consequence of tooth extraction with the purpose of facilitating tooth replacement therapy. This randomized controlled trial was primarily aimed at testing the efficacy of ARP as compared with unassisted socket healing. A secondary objective was to evaluate the effect that local phenotypic factors play in the volumetric reduction of the alveolar bone. A total of 53 subjects completed the study. Subjects were randomized into either the control group, which involved only tooth extraction (EXT n = 27), or the experimental group, which received ARP using a combination of socket grafting with a particulate bone allograft and socket sealing with a nonabsorbable membrane (dPTFE) following tooth extraction (ARP n = 26). A set of clinical, linear, volumetric, implant-related, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed during a 14-wk healing period. All linear bone assessments (horizontal, midbuccal, and midlingual reduction) revealed that ARP is superior to EXT. Likewise, volumetric bone resorption was significantly higher in the control group (mean ± SD: EXT = −15.83% ± 4.48%, ARP = −8.36% ± 3.81%, P < 0.0001). Linear regression analyses revealed that baseline buccal bone thickness is a strong predictor of alveolar bone resorption in both groups. Interestingly, no significant differences in terms of soft tissue contour change were observed between groups. Additional bone augmentation to facilitate implant placement in a prosthetically acceptable position was deemed necessary in 48.1% of the EXT sites and only 11.5% of the ARP sites ( P < 0.004). Assessment of perceived postoperative discomfort at each follow-up visit revealed a progressive decrease over time, which was comparable between groups. Although some extent of alveolar ridge remodeling occurred in both groups, ARP therapy was superior to EXT as it was more efficacious in the maintenance of alveolar bone and reduced the estimated need for additional bone augmentation at the time of implant placement (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01794806).

scholarly journals Autogenous Chin Block Grafts in the Aesthetic Zone: A 20-Year Follow-Up Case Report

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlo Maiorana ◽  
Susanna Ferrario ◽  
Pier Paolo Poli ◽  
Mattia Manfredini
Keyword(s):  
Autogenous Bone ◽  
Bone Augmentation ◽  
Reliable Technique ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Osseointegrated Implants ◽  
Clinical And Radiological Outcome ◽  
The Aesthetic ◽  
Autogenous Bone Grafts

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document