A retrospective 10‐year mean follow‐up of implants placed in ridges grafted using autogenous mandibular blocks covered with bovine bone mineral and collagen membrane

Abstract

Objectives To report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients presenting with edentulous and atrophic ridges and treated with autogenous mandibular bone blocks and rehabilitated with implant‐supported prostheses. Materials and methods From 1997 to 2015, 75 patients presenting with bone defects of the jaws were grafted with autogenous mandibular bone blocks. One‐hundred eighty‐two implants were placed 4 to 12 months later and loaded 3 to 10 months later: the mean follow‐up was 10 years (range: 3–16 years). The following outcomes were recorded: (a) complication rate of the reconstructive procedure; (b) bone graft resorption before implant placement; (c) peri‐implant bone resorption; (d) implant‐related complications; and (e) implant survival and success rates. Results Postoperative recovery was uneventful in the majority of patients. An early dehiscence occurred in three patients, but with no significant bone loss, while 3 experienced temporary paraesthesia. The mean vertical and horizontal bone resorption before implant placement was 0.18 mm (standard deviation [SD] = 0.43) and 0.15 mm (SD = 0.42), respectively. The mean peri‐implant bone loss ± standard deviation was 1.06 ± 1.19 (range: 0.00–5.05) at patient level and 1.11 ± 1.26 (range: 0.00–5.20) at implant level. Two implants in 2 patients lost integration and were removed; 10 implants in 7 patients developed peri‐implantitis, but healed after surgical treatment. The cumulative implant survival and success rates were 98.11% and 85.16%, respectively. Conclusion Implants placed in areas reconstructed with mandibular bone blocks presented survival rates consistent with those obtained for implants placed in native bone.

Customized CAD/CAM titanium meshes for the guided bone regeneration of severe alveolar ridge defects: Preliminary results of a retrospective clinical study in humans

“…To restore adequate bone volumes, different reconstructive techniques have been proposed, including (a) autogenous bone grafts (Chiapasco et al, 2009(Chiapasco et al, , 2018(Chiapasco et al, , 2020Milinkovic & Cordaro, 2014); (b) distraction osteogenesis 2004;Chin & Toth, 1996); and (c) guided bone regeneration-GBR (Benic & Hämmerle, 2014;Lang et al, 1994;Milinkovic & Cordaro, 2014;Wessing et al, 2018). Among these, GBR procedures are well documented.…”

Thermal effects of various drill materials during implant site preparation—Ceramic vs. stainless steel drills: A comparative in vitro study in a standardised bovine bone model

“…During the past decades, implant‐supported treatment solutions have become a predictable and viable option for prosthetic rehabilitation of toothless and partially edentulous patients. In this respect, titanium dental implants have been well documented over a long period of time and are widely accepted as the gold standard in contemporary dental implantology (Buser et al., 2012; Chiapasco et al., 2020; Chrcanovic et al., 2020; Ducommun et al., 2019; Jung et al., 2012; Pjetursson et al., 2012). Regardless of the reported success rates for dental implants, the implications of implant failure can be both medically and financially challenging (Mardinger et al., 2008).…”

Latest Findings of the Regenerative Materials Application in Periodontal and Peri-Implant Surgery: A Scoping Review

“…The studies were from four categories: controlled intervention studies [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ], observational cohort and cross-sectional studies [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ], and case series/case reports studies [ 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 ].…”

“…Autogenous mandibular bone blocks covered with a membrane of bone mineral and bovine collagen can be used to regenerate the alveolar process of patients with edentulous and atrophic ridges, with implant survival rates consistent with those obtained for implants placed in native bone [ 36 ].…”