On the basis of available data it was shown that it was difficult to demonstrate that a particular surgical procedure offered better outcome as compared to another. The main limit encountered in this review has been the overall poor methodological quality of the published articles. Therefore larger well-designed long term trials are needed.

The results of this radiographic research suggested that implantoplasty was an effective treatment of peri-implant infections and peri-implantitis progression.

Both ABB and BCP produced similar amounts of newly formed bone, with similar histologic appearance, indicating that both materials are suitable for sinus augmentation for the placement of dental implants. The potential clinical relevance of more soft tissue components and different resorption characteristics of BCP requires further investigation.

The aim of this study was to analyse the clinical outcome of two different surgical methods for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges before implant installation: guided bone regeneration with e-PTFE membranes and autologous bone chips or grafting of autologous bone blocks without e-PTFE membranes. Thirty partially edentulous patients, presenting insufficient bone width (less than 4 mm) in the edentulous sites for installation of screw-type titanium implants, were selected and assigned to two different treatment modalities. Fifteen patients (group 1) were treated by means of guided bone regeneration with e-PTFE membranes supported by stainless steel screws and autologous bone chips taken from intraoral sites. Fifteen patients (group 2) were treated by means of autologous bone blocks taken from intraoral or extraoral sites (anterior iliac crest and calvaria) and stabilized with titanium microscrews. Six to 8 months later, during re-entry for implant insertion, the gain of ridge width obtained was measured. In group 1 the average amount of bone gain was 2.7 mm, whereas in group 2 the value was 4.0 mm. Five to 6 months after implant placement prosthetic rehabilitation was started. The mean follow-up after prosthetic load has been 22.4 months. Success rates of implants according to Albrektsson criteria has been 93.3% in group 1, and 90.9% in group 2. Although a statistical comparison between the two treatment modalities may not be feasible, due to the bias resulting from the choice of treatment by the clinician and from the differences in donor sites and defect extension, some considerations can be made: 1) both methods are a reliable means for the correction of narrow edentulous ridges; 2) both techniques necessitate overcorrection of the defect because of interposition of connective tissue beneath the membrane in the first group and bone resorption in the second one; 3) the use of semipermeable barriers increases the costs of the surgical procedure, as compared to bone grafting without membranes; 4) guided bone regeneration presents a higher risk of infection because of wound dehiscence and membrane exposure. Therefore, in case of wide edentulous areas, reconstruction of narrow ridges should be performed with bone blocks without membranes.

Despite the favorable results obtained, it was difficult to draw a significant conclusion as far as the more reliable grafting material and membrane barrier for the correction of dehiscence/fenestration defects are concerned, due to the limited sample of patients and the wide variety of grafting materials and membranes, used alone or in combination. Moreover, due to the lack of randomized clinical trials, it was impossible to demonstrate that such augmentation procedures are actually needed to allow the long-term survival of implants.

The results suggested that: (a) both techniques may effectively improve the deficit of vertically resorbed edentulous ridges; (b) survival and success rates of implants placed in the reconstructed/distracted areas are consistent with those of implants placed in native bone.

The purpose of this prospective study was to compare vertical guided bone regeneration (GBR) and vertical distraction osteogenesis (DO) for their ability in correcting vertically deficient alveolar ridges and their ability in maintaining over time the vertical bone gain obtained before and after implant placement. Eleven patients (group 1) were treated by means of vertical GBR with autogenous bone and e-PTFE membranes, while 10 patients (group 2) were treated by means of DO. In group 1, six patients received implants at the time of GBR (subgroup 1A), while five patients had implants placed at the time of membrane removal (subgroup 1B). In group 2, implants were placed at the time of distraction device removal. A total of 25 implants were placed in group 1 and 34 implants were placed in group 2 patients. Three to 5 months after implant placement, patients were rehabilitated with implant-borne dental prostheses. The following parameters were evaluated: (a) bone resorption of the regenerated ridges before and after implant placement; (b) peri-implant clinical parameters 1, 2, and 3 years after prosthetic loading of implants; (c) survival and success rates of implants. Bone resorption values before and after implant placement were significantly higher in group 1. The results suggested that both techniques may improve the deficit of vertically resorbed edentulous ridges, although distraction osteogenesis seems to be more predictable as far as the long-term prognosis of vertical bone gain is concerned. Implant survival rates as well as peri-implant clinical parameters do not differ significantly between the two groups, whereas the success rate of implants placed in group 2 patients was higher than that obtained in group 1 patients.

The reconstruction of maxillo-mandibular defects following ablation for tumors or osteoradionecrosis with fibula-free flaps has been demonstrated to be a reliable technique with good long-term results. Implants placed in the reconstructed areas were demonstrated to integrate normally, with success and survival rates comparable to those obtained in case of implants placed in native bone.