A comparative study of osseointegration of titanium implants in corticocancellous block and corticocancellous chip grafts in canine ilium

“…) and one in the iliac crest (score = 12) (Lew et al. ). Four studies were performed in the mandible of pigs (mean score = 13.8 ± 2.1; range 12–16) (Schliephake & Neukam , Schliephake et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of pre‐clinical models assessing implant integration in locally compromised sites and/or systemically compromised animals

Thoma

Martín

Mühlemann

et al. 2012

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim was to systematically search the dental literature for pre-clinical models assessing implant integration in locally compromised sites (part 1) and systemically compromised animals (part 2), and to evaluate the quality of reporting of included publications. Methods: A Medline search was performed, complimented by additional hand searching. The quality of reporting of the included publications was evaluated using the 20 items of the ARRIVE (Animals in Research In Vivo Experiments) guidelines. Results: One-hundred and seventy-six (part 1; mean ARRIVE score = 15.6 ± 2.4) and 104 (part 2; 16.2 ± 1.9) studies met the inclusion criteria. The overall mean score for all included studies amounted to 15.8 ± 2.2. Housing (38.3%), allocation of animals (37.9%), numbers analysed (50%) and adverse events (51.4%) of the ARRIVE guidelines were the least reported. Statistically significant differences in mean ARRIVE scores were found depending on the publication date (p < 0.05), with the highest score of 16.7 ± 1.6 for studies published within the last 2 years. Conclusions: A large number of studies met the inclusion criteria. The ARRIVE scores revealed heterogeneity and missing information for selected items in more than 50% of the publications. The quality of reporting shifted towards betterreported pre-clinical trials within recent years.

show abstract

“…These grafts create a source of viable cells and proteins and provide a scaffold for new bone formation, but without antigenicity [11]. Revascularization of a bone graft is critical for cell survival and graft incorporation [12].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alveolar ridge augmentation with the perforated and nonperforated bone grafts

Ávila

Filho

Ramalho

et al. 2014

J Periodontal Implant Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Autogenous bones are frequently used because of their lack of antigenicity, but good osteoconductive and osteoinductive properties. This study evaluated the biological behavior of perforated and nonperforated cortical block bone grafts. Methods: Ten nonsmoking patients who required treatment due to severe resorption of the alveolar process and subsequent implant installation were included in the study. The inclusion criteria was loss of one or more teeth; the presence of atrophy of the alveolar process with the indication of reconstruction procedures to allow rehabilitation with dental implants; and the absence of systemic disease, local infection, or inflammation. The patients were randomly divided into two groups based on whether they received a perforated (inner surface) or nonperforated graft. After a 6-month healing period, a biopsy was performed and osseointegrated implants were installed in the same procedure. Results: Fibrous connective tissue was evident at the interface in patients who received nonperforated grafts. However, full union between the graft and host bed was visible in those who had received a perforated graft. Conclusions: We found that cortical inner side perforations at donor sites increased the surface area and opened the medullary cavity. Our results indicate an increased rate of graft incorporation in patients who received such perforated grafts.

show abstract

A comparative study of osseointegration of titanium implants in corticocancellous block and corticocancellous chip grafts in canine ilium

Cited by 31 publications

References 8 publications

Clinical, histological and histomorphometric evaluation of the healing of mandibular ramus bone block grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation before implant placement

Clinical, histological and histomorphometric evaluation of the healing of mandibular ramus bone block grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation before implant placement

Systematic review of pre‐clinical models assessing implant integration in locally compromised sites and/or systemically compromised animals

Alveolar ridge augmentation with the perforated and nonperforated bone grafts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About