A Case Series of Vertical Ridge Augmentation Using a Nonresorbable Membrane: A Multicenter Study

Mendoza‐Azpur, Gerardo; Gallo, Pier; Mayta-Tovalino, Frank; Alva, Renato; Valdivia, Erick

doi:10.11607/prd.3538

Cited by 6 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…active or uncontrolled periodontal disease 40,[45][46][47]50,53,55,56,60,65,66,68 ), and two studies had participants with periodontitis undergo periodontal therapy prior to any GBR procedure or implant placement. 41,55…”

Section: Description Of Selected Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 12 studies used a staged GBR approach only, 17,39,42,44,45,54,56,[62][63][64][65][66] 11 studies used a simultaneous GBR approach. 41,43,46,49,51,55,[59][60][61]67,68 Eight studies included both simultaneous and staged GBR approaches, 40,47,48,50,52,53,57,58 with the latter being used when presented with more severe osseous defects and in cases where primary implant stability could not be predictably achieved at the bone grafting stage.…”

Section: Surgical Procedures and Biomaterials Usedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Healing complications and their detrimental effects on bone gain in vertical‐guided bone regeneration: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Tay

et al. 2022

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Guided bone regeneration (GBR) utilizes a barrier membrane to allow osteogenic cells to populate a space by excluding epithelial and connective tissue cells.The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the ratio of means (RoM) of vertical bone gained (Outcome) in vertical GBR procedures with healing complications (Intervention) and in vertical GBR procedures without healing complications (Comparison) in patients with vertically resorbed edentulous ridges that require dental implant placement (Population). A further aim was to investigate the incidence of complications after vertical GBR, and the influence of the timing of implant placement and regenerative devices on complications.Materials and Methods: MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched in duplicate up to, and including, November 2020 for randomized and controlled clinical trials and prospective and retrospective case series. Outcomes included patient-level and site-level RoM of vertical bone gain between healing complications and uneventful healing, and incidences of complications that occurred after vertical GBR. Random-effects and fixed-effects meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021226432).Results: A total of 31 publications were selected for the qualitative and quantitative analyses. The RoM of vertical bone gained was 0.65 [95% CI = 0.47, 0.91] and 0.62 [95% CI = 0.45, 0.85] when membrane exposure without suppuration and abscess formation without membrane exposure occurred respectively, in comparison to uneventful healing. The overall incidence proportion of healing complications occurring at the augmented site at a site-and patient-level was 11.0% [95% CI = 7.0, 15.6] and 10.8% [95% CI = 6.6, 15.7]. At a patient-level, there were no significant differences between a simultaneous or staged approach, or with the regenerative device used. The site-level incidence proportion of membrane exposure without suppuration, membrane exposure with suppuration, and with abscess formation without membrane exposure was 8.7% [95% CI = 4.2, 14.2], 0.7% [95% CI = 0.0, 2.9], and 0.5% [95% CI = 0.0, 1.7], respectively. The site-level weighted mean incidence proportion of neurologic complications occurring at the donor site was 0.8% [95% CI = 0.0, 5.3].

show abstract

Section: Description Of Selected Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Surgical Procedures and Biomaterials Usedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Healing complications and their detrimental effects on bone gain in vertical‐guided bone regeneration: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Tay

et al. 2022

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Adept knowledge of case selection and of anatomic limitations are keys for success. 15 , 16 Bone grafts have two main functions in GBR procedures. The first is mechanical, where it helps maintaining the space required for GBR, stabilizes the blood clot, and stabilizes the membrane.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of two biomaterials mixed with autogenous bone graft for vertical ridge augmentation: A histomorphometric study in humans

Gallo

Díaz‐Báez

Pérdomo

et al. 2022

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The vertical increase of the alveolar ridge dimension using allograft or xenograft mixed with autogenous bone graft and covered by a nonabsorbable high‐density polytetrafluoroethylene (d‐PTFE) membrane is well documented in the literature. Purpose The aim of this study was to assess vital mineralized tissue formation in vertical ridge augmentation (VRA) procedures using autogenous bone chips mixed either with an allograft or a xenograft. Methods This prospective clinical trial recruited 16 partially edentulous patients to undergo vertical ridge augmentation in one or more sites, making up a total of 24 samples for histological evaluation. Patients were sequentially stratified into Group A (treated with a freeze‐dried bone allograft [FDBA] mixed with autogenous bone) or to Group B (treated with a bovine xenograft mixed with autogenous bone). Histological samples were analyzed according to the biomaterial used for VRA. Histological samples were obtained on the same day of membrane removal and implant placement. Results Thirty‐three implants were placed in 16 sites of regenerated bone via VRA, 13 patients with ridge augmentation in the posterior mandible, and 3 patients with VRA in the anterior maxilla. Group A (FDBA + autogenous) and Group B (xenograft + autogenous) showed a percent vital mineralized tissue (VMT) area of 67.64 ± 16.84 and 60.93 ± 18.25, respectively. A significant difference between the two biomaterials was not observed. Conclusion When mixed with autogenous bone, either allografts or xenografts may provide a successful augmentation. Either mixture could serve as reliable alternative in VRA for obtaining a high percentage of VMT.

show abstract

“…It is known that ePTFE membranes have premature exposure rates of 30–40%, accompanied by suppuration and a significant risk of infection [ 10 ]. In a previous study, dPTFE membranes were shown to have a premature exposure rate of 25.7% [ 25 ]. In this case series, 42.8% (six out of 14 cases) of patients demonstrated premature exposure, which represented no less exposure than expected.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical, Radiographic, and Histomorphometric Evaluation of a Vertical Ridge Augmentation Procedure Using a Titanium-Reinforced Microporous Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene Membrane: A Prospective Case Series with 1-Year Follow-Up

Choi

et al. 2021

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vertical ridge augmentation for long-term implant stability is difficult in severely resorbed areas. We examined the clinical, radiological, and histological outcomes of guided-bone regeneration using novel titanium-reinforced microporous expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (MP-ePTFE) membranes. Eighteen patients who underwent implant placement using a staged approach were enrolled (period: 2018–2019). Vertical ridge augmentation was performed in areas with vertical bone defects ≥ 4 mm. Twenty-six implant fixtures were placed in 14 patients. At implant placement six fixtures had relatively low stability. On cone-beam computed tomography, the average vertical changes were 4.2 ± 1.9 (buccal), 5.9 ± 2.7 (central), and 4.4 ± 2.8 mm (lingual) at six months after vertical ridge augmentation. Histomorphometric analyses revealed that the average proportions of new bone, residual bone substitute material, and soft tissue were 34.91 ± 11.61%, 7.16 ± 2.74%, and 57.93 ± 11.09%, respectively. Stable marginal bone levels were observed at 1-year post-loading. The residual bone graft material area was significantly lower in the exposed group (p = 0.003). There was no significant difference in the vertical height change in the buccal side between immediately after the augmentation procedure and the implant placement reentry time (p = 0.371). However, all implants functioned well regardless of the exposure during the observation period. Thus, vertical ridge augmentation around implants using titanium-reinforced MP-ePTFE membranes can be successful.

show abstract

A Case Series of Vertical Ridge Augmentation Using a Nonresorbable Membrane: A Multicenter Study

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Healing complications and their detrimental effects on bone gain in vertical‐guided bone regeneration: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Healing complications and their detrimental effects on bone gain in vertical‐guided bone regeneration: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Comparative analysis of two biomaterials mixed with autogenous bone graft for vertical ridge augmentation: A histomorphometric study in humans

Clinical, Radiographic, and Histomorphometric Evaluation of a Vertical Ridge Augmentation Procedure Using a Titanium-Reinforced Microporous Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene Membrane: A Prospective Case Series with 1-Year Follow-Up

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About