Alveolar distraction osteogenesis for dental implant treatments of the vertical bone atrophy: A systematic review

Toledano‐Serrabona, Jorge; Sánchez-Garcés, María Ángeles; Sánchez‐Torres, Alba; Gay‐Escoda, Cosme

doi:10.4317/medoral.22750

Cited by 19 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mobility of the transport segment is checked, then the device is put to initial passive position. Post-operative activation period is divided into three phases: latency, distraction, consolidation [2,46,56].…”

Section: Distraction Osteogenesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore it's safely indicated in vertical bone atrophies up to 15 mm [46]. In two clinical studies comparing autogenous bone block grafting and alveolar distraction osteogenesis (ADO), Bianchi et al reported more bone gain in ADO group where Chiapasco et al controversially reported no significant differences between the outcomes [56]. The procedure's contraindicated in cases presenting a thin knife-edge crest and insufficient bone amount to allow adequate anchorage.…”

Section: Distraction Osteogenesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Alveolar Ridge Augmentation Techniques in Implant Dentistry

Aytekin¹,

Arısan²

2021

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implant supported restorations have become an ideal treatment alternative for the rehabilitation of edentulous sites. However alveolar bone defects due to resorption, trauma or oncologic diseases may considerably affect favorable implant positioning and prosthetic outcomes. Various alveolar ridge augmentation procedures are available to gain enough bone volume and apply the ideal treatment plan afterwards. Guided bone regeneration, ridge splitting, distraction osteogenesis, maxillary sinus augmentation and autogenous block bone grafting are main techniques which have successful outcomes in reconstruction of bone defects. It’s difficult to demonstrate that one augmentation procedure offers better outcomes than another. Studies documenting augmentation techniques seem to be comparable and state favorable results for each procedure.

show abstract

Section: Distraction Osteogenesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Distraction Osteogenesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Alveolar Ridge Augmentation Techniques in Implant Dentistry

Aytekin¹,

Arısan²

2021

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, alveolar ridge defects or completely atrophic alveolar ridges pose a considerable problem for implant rehabilitation in a large number of patients [ 2 ]. Bone augmentation procedures such as inlay or onlay grafts, guided bone regeneration, and distraction osteogenesis are usually advised to manage alveolar defects before implant placement to obtain the minimum bony requirement for successful positioning of dental implants [ 3 , 4 ]. Studies indicate that regeneration procedures offer predictable results, and the success of implants placed in regenerated areas is very similar to that of implants placed in pristine bone [ 5 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simultaneous implant placement with autogenous onlay bone grafts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ma¹,

Wu²,

Shao³

2021

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several authors have suggested that implants can be placed simultaneously with onlay bone grafts without affecting outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to answer the following clinical questions: (1) What are the outcomes of implants placed simultaneously with autogenous onlay bone grafts? And (2) is there a difference in outcomes between simultaneous vs delayed placement of implants with autogenous onlay bone grafts? Databases of PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched up to 15 November 2020. Data on implant survival was extracted from all the included studies (single arm and comparative) to calculate point estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and pooled using the DerSimonian–Laird meta-analysis model. We also compared implant survival rates between the simultaneous and delayed placement of implants with data from comparative studies. Nineteen studies were included. Five of them compared simultaneous and delayed placement of implants. Dividing the studies based on follow-up duration, the pooled survival of implant placed simultaneously with onlay grafts after <2.5 years of follow-up was 93.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 97.4%) and after 2.5–5 years was 86% (95% CI 78.6 to 91.1%). Implant survival was found to be 85.8% (95% CI 79.6 to 90.3%) with iliac crest grafts and 95.7% (95% CI 83.9 to 93.0%) with intra-oral grafts. Our results indicated no statistically significant difference in implant survival between simultaneous and delayed placement (OR 0.43, 95% 0.07, 2.49, I2=59.04%). Data on implant success and bone loss were limited. Data indicates that implants placed simultaneously with autogenous onlay grafts have a survival rate of 93.1% and 86% after a follow-up of <2.5 years and 2.5–5years respectively. A limited number of studies indicate no significant difference in implant survival between the simultaneous and delayed placement of implants with onlay bone grafts. There is a need for randomized controlled trials comparing simultaneous and delayed implant placement to provide robust evidence.

show abstract

“…The resorption of bone tissue after teeth extraction could represent a great challenge for oral rehabilitation with dental implants [ 5 , 6 ]. The literature reports that bone regeneration with autogenous onlay grafts, guided bone regeneration, and bone distraction are viable options to treat bone resorption [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. However, such techniques have associated disadvantages such as morbidity, the need for multiple procedures, a high cost, patient acceptance, and a significant incidence of postoperative complications [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Comparation of Extra-Short (4 mm) and Long (>8 mm) Dental Implants Placed in Mandibular Bone: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review (SR) aimed to evaluate implant survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), and biological/prosthetic complications of extra-short 4 mm dental implants. An electronic search without language or date restrictions was performed in five databases and in gray literature for articles published until August 2020. Prospective cohort studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the clinical performance of extra-short 4 mm dental implants were included. Studies were independently assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. The protocol of this SR was registered in the PROSPERO database under number CRD42019139709. Four studies were included in the present SR. There was no significant difference in implant survival rate (p = 0.75) between extra-short 4 mm and long implants. After 12 months of function, the extra-short implants had a significantly (p = 0.003) lower marginal bone loss (MBL) rate when compared to long implants. Extra-short implants had a lower number of biological and prosthetic complications when compared to long implants. After 12 months of follow-up, extra-short 4 mm dental implants placed in the mandible exhibit satisfactory clinical outcomes concerning implant survival rate and MBL when compared to longer implants, with a low number of biological and prosthetic complications. A higher number of RCTs with longer follow-up is necessary for the future.

show abstract

Alveolar distraction osteogenesis for dental implant treatments of the vertical bone atrophy: A systematic review

Cited by 19 publications

References 33 publications

Alveolar Ridge Augmentation Techniques in Implant Dentistry

Alveolar Ridge Augmentation Techniques in Implant Dentistry

Simultaneous implant placement with autogenous onlay bone grafts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical Comparation of Extra-Short (4 mm) and Long (>8 mm) Dental Implants Placed in Mandibular Bone: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About