The present study was conducted to histologically and histomorphometrically evaluate the application of cancellous bone-block allografts for the augmentation of the posterior atrophic mandible. Twenty-four consecutive patients underwent augmentation with cancellous bone-block allografts in the posterior mandible. A bony deficiency of at least 3 mm horizontally and/or vertically according to CT para-axial reconstruction served as inclusion criteria. Following 6 months, 85 implants were placed and a cylindrical sample core was collected. All specimens were prepared for histological and histomorphometrical examination. Implant survival rate was 95.3%. Follow-up ranged 12-66 months (mean 43 ± 19 months). The mean newly formed bone was 44 ± 28%, that of the residual cancellous bone-block allograft 29 ± 24%, and of the marrow and connective tissue 27 ± 21%. Statistically significant histomorphometric differences regarding newly formed bone (69% vs. 31%, p = 0.05) were found between younger (< 45 years) and older (> 45 years) patients, respectively. Histomorphometric differences regarding residual cancellous bone-block allograft (17% vs. 35%) and of the marrow and connective tissue (14% vs. 34%) were not statistically significant. Cancellous bone-block allograft is biocompatible and osteoconductive, permitting new bone formation following augmentation of extremely atrophic posterior mandible with a two-stage implant placement procedure. New bone formation was age-dependent.

No abstract

This study aimed at determining whether the individual's chewing side preference is affected by local effects, produced by the presence of implant-supported restorations. The test group included 81 patients with partial implant-supported prosthesis. The control group included 108 subjects with no implants. All subjects went through a series of laterality tests for chewing and tasks (hand, foot, eye and ear) side preference. The preferred chewing side (PCS) was determined by observing the first stroke of the chewing cycle during chewing a gum. A positive and significant correlation between the chewing side preference and the subject's sidedness during the different tasks was examined, by performing four Phi correlation tests for: chewing and handedness(r = 0·54; P < 0·001); chewing and footedness (r = 0·49; P < 0·001); chewing and eyedness (r = 0·65; P < 0·001) and chewing and earedness (r = 0·66, P < 0·001). Of the subjects, 78·3% preferred the right side for chewing, 19·1% preferred the left and 2·1% had no clear side preference. There was no statistical difference in chewing side preference distribution between genders. The distribution of chewing side preference was not significantly affected by the location of missing teeth or implants. In conclusion, implant placement will not affect PCS. Therefore, information on chewing side preference should be part of the routine preoperative examination for implant-supported restorations to provide a better treatment plan in those cases that the implant-supported restoration will be on the PCS.

No abstract

No abstract