Bioabsorbable Materials for Guided Bone Regeneration Prior to Implant Placement and 7‐Year Follow‐Up: Report of 14 Cases

Brunel, G; Brocard, D; Duffort, Jean François; Jacquet, Edmond; Justumus, Pierre; Simonet, Thierry; Benqué, Edmond

doi:10.1902/jop.2001.72.2.257

Cited by 70 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Surgical procedure Five studies (10,12,(14)(15)(16)) used a combination of autograft with xenograft, hydroxyapatite or homologous bone. In the remaining 8 studies a single type of graft was used: autologous bone (8,10,13,14), homologous bone (11,14), bovine bone (10,18,19) or hydroxyapatite (17). In two studies (13,15) the intraoral autologous grafts were obtained from the retromolar region, while in one publication the graft was harvested from the mandibular ramus (16).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the studies involving dehiscences or fenestrations (8,10,14), the particulate grafts were placed with the implants in the same surgical step. In 5 studies (12,13,15,17,18) biopsies were obtained of the implant receptor bone at the end of the graft healing period, and the histological study confirmed an adequate bone structure for implant placement. The implants are to be placed once primary stability has been assured.…”

Section: Healing Timementioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bone regeneration using particulate grafts: An update

Aloy-Prósper¹,

Maestre-Ferrín²,

Peñarrocha‐Oltra³

et al. 2011

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: A review is made of the publications on bone regeneration using particulate grafts, with an evaluation of the success of implants placed in such regenerated areas. Material and Method: A Medline search using different key words was made of the articles published between 1999-2009 involving at least two patients subjected to grafting with autologous, homologous or xenogenic bone, non-bony substitutes, or a combination of these grafts for the placement of dental implants. Studies involving block grafting were excluded. A total of 11 studies were evaluated. Results: These grafts are indicated in cases of small or peri-implant bone defects such as dehiscences and fenestrations, with the possibility of combining a barrier membrane. However, some authors have used particulate block grafts to secure vertical or horizontal increments of the alveolar process. In most of these cases, graft healing until implant placement lasted 6-9 months. The most frequent complications in the receptor zone were wound dehiscences with exposure of the membrane. In almost all cases, prosthetic loading of the implants took place more than three months after their placement. The implant survival rate varied from 90.9% to 100%, with an implantation success rate of 85.7% to 100%. Conclusions: Although our sample is small, due to the difficulty of finding homogeneous studies, it can be concluded that particulate grafts are effective in correcting localized defects of the alveolar process. The complications of particulate grafting are few, and the success rate of implants placed in the reconstructed areas varies from 85.7% to 100%.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Healing Timementioning

confidence: 96%

Bone regeneration using particulate grafts: An update

Aloy-Prósper¹,

Maestre-Ferrín²,

Peñarrocha‐Oltra³

et al. 2011

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Older investigations described a resorption rate of 5 to 15% per year after orthopedic application [101]. Degradation of sHA is hard to control and predict due to a great number of influencing factors and individual variations among patients [102].…”

Section: Degradationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular, Cellular and Pharmaceutical Aspects of Synthetic Hydroxyapatite Bone Substitutes for Oral and Maxillofacial Grafting

Götz¹,

Papageorgiou²

2017

CPB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bone grafts are widely used for augmentation procedures in oral and maxillofacial surgery, with autogenous bone being the gold standard. Recently, the focus of research has shifted towards synthetic bone substitutes, as no second surgery is needed and large quantities of graft can easily be provided. Within the broad range of bone substitutes, synthetic hydroxyapatite has drawn much attention, as they are considered to be biocompatible, non-immunogenic, osteoconductive and osteoinductive. Scope of this review is to summarize existing knowledge concerning the molecular, cellular and pharmaceutical aspects of synthetic bone substitutes for oral and maxillofacial grafting.

show abstract

“…Некоторые авторы указывают, что эффективность НТР варьирует в пределах 85-98,3% [6,21,24,25,35,51]. Основные недостатки данной методики: регенированная костная ткань структурно отличается от естественной; возможно обнажение мембраны, что ставит под сомнение успешный исход вмешательства; относительно длитель-ный срок лечения [50].…”

Section: стоматология 2 2015unclassified