Alveolar distraction osteogenesis vs. vertical guided bone regeneration for the correction of vertically deficient edentulous ridges: A 1–3‐year prospective study on humans

Abstract

The purpose of this prospective study was to compare vertical guided bone regeneration (GBR) and vertical distraction osteogenesis (DO) for their ability in correcting vertically deficient alveolar ridges and their ability in maintaining over time the vertical bone gain obtained before and after implant placement. Eleven patients (group 1) were treated by means of vertical GBR with autogenous bone and e-PTFE membranes, while 10 patients (group 2) were treated by means of DO. In group 1, six patients received implants at the time of GBR (subgroup 1A), while five patients had implants placed at the time of membrane removal (subgroup 1B). In group 2, implants were placed at the time of distraction device removal. A total of 25 implants were placed in group 1 and 34 implants were placed in group 2 patients. Three to 5 months after implant placement, patients were rehabilitated with implant-borne dental prostheses. The following parameters were evaluated: (a) bone resorption of the regenerated ridges before and after implant placement; (b) peri-implant clinical parameters 1, 2, and 3 years after prosthetic loading of implants; (c) survival and success rates of implants. Bone resorption values before and after implant placement were significantly higher in group 1. The results suggested that both techniques may improve the deficit of vertically resorbed edentulous ridges, although distraction osteogenesis seems to be more predictable as far as the long-term prognosis of vertical bone gain is concerned. Implant survival rates as well as peri-implant clinical parameters do not differ significantly between the two groups, whereas the success rate of implants placed in group 2 patients was higher than that obtained in group 1 patients.

Distraction Osteogenesis in Implantology for Ridge Augmentation - A Systematic Review

“…50 Kanno et al [44] 80 alternative to correct vertical deficits of edentulous ridges resulting from atrophy, trauma, congenital malformation, and the resection of benign or malignant tumors [29]. These results have been confirmed by other studies [23,30].…”

Guided bone regeneration using a hydrophilic membrane made of unsintered hydroxyapatite and poly(L-lactic acid) in a rat bone-defect model

“…This problem can be overcome by bone augmentation through guided bone regeneration (GBR), which involves the creation of a space, with placement of a barrier membrane to preserve the blood clot, prevent soft tissue invasion, and promote bone regeneration in the created space [1][2][3] . This technique has been clinically applied and extensively reported [4][5][6][7] .…”

To Graft or Not to Graft? Evidence-Based Guide to Decision Making in Oral Bone Graft Surgery

“…Significantly greater horizontal bone gain has been reported using onlay block grafts (4.0 mm vs. 2.7 mm, 30 patients, LoE-3) vs. guided bone regeneration (Chiapasco et al, 1999). Augmentation of vertical bone height using distraction osteogenesis has been demonstrated to yield significantly lower graft resorption prior to implant placement (0.3 mm vs. 0.6 mm, 17 patients, LoE-2) vs. onlay grafts (Chiapasco et al, 2007) as well as significantly higher implant success and lower marginal bone resorption (93% vs. 64%, 1.4 mm vs. 1.9 mm, 21 patients, LoE-2) vs. guided bone regeneration (Chiapasco et al, 2004). (Pommer et al, 2011), it should be considered that regional differences may very well exist in grafted bone.…”