Comparison between peri-implant bone level changes of implants placed during and 3 months after iliac bone grafting

Tosun, Emre; Avağ, Canseda; Başlarlı, Özgür; Kiriş, Serkan; Öztürk, Anıl Murat; Akkocaoğlu, Murat

doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2017.11.005

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…After discussion and further evaluation between the authors another 35 full‐text articles were excluded and not analyzed further (Table 1). 1,19–21,66–96 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tooth preservation vs. extraction and implant placement in periodontally compromised patients: A systematic review and analysis of studies

Sarafidou

Lazaridi

Gotsis

et al. 2022

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of this systematic review was to identify studies with a minimum of 5‐years follow‐up, reporting on the management of periodontally compromised teeth with either extraction and subsequent implant placement or teeth preservation with conventional periodontal treatment and application of regenerative procedures. The outcomes of these two approaches, based on clinical and radiographic data and the incidence of tooth‐ and implant‐loss, were also investigated. Material and methods A systematic search for studies reporting on clinical and radiographic outcomes of periodontal treatment or replacement of periodontally compromised teeth with implants was conducted in 3 electronic databases, followed by a hand‐search in 8 journals. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series with prospective design were included. Results The initial search resulted in 1080 papers. After the first two screenings, 24 publications were selected for inclusion in this systematic review. The treatment protocols for the teeth preservation group contained nonsurgical and/or surgical periodontal treatment with or without regeneration procedures. The implant studies included extraction of periodontally involved teeth and implant placement with or without bone and soft tissue augmentation, followed by restoration with fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Survival rates ranged between 81.8% and 100% in the tooth retention group, and between 94.8% and 100% in the implant group. In the extraction group, no complications were reported for 76.09% of the implants. Similarly, no complications were reported for 86.83% of the tooth retention group. The lack of standardized comparable studies prohibited conduction of a metaanalysis. Conclusion Both treatment approaches, treatment of periodontally compromised teeth, or tooth extraction followed by implant placement, present high survival rates. The application of bone regeneration techniques improves the long‐term prognosis of periodontally involved teeth. Hence, treatment of periodontally involved teeth with subsequent application of a rigorous maintenance protocol can be a viable alternative for a number of years, before proceeding to extraction and replacement with dental implants. More well‐designed randomized controlled trials are needed in order to draw definite conclusions on the subject.

show abstract

“…After discussion and further evaluation between the authors another 35 full‐text articles were excluded and not analyzed further (Table 1). 1,19–21,66–96 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tooth preservation vs. extraction and implant placement in periodontally compromised patients: A systematic review and analysis of studies

Sarafidou

Lazaridi

Gotsis

et al. 2022

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Few studies reported only average values while others reported a percentage of bone loss from grafted levels (Table 1). In the five comparative studies, data on bone loss was available from only two studies, and both reported a significantly higher bone loss in the simultaneous implant placement group as compared to the delayed implant placement group [9,19]. On comparing implant survival between simultaneous and delayed implant placement with data from four studies, our results indicated no statistically significant difference between the two groups (OR 0.43, 95% 0.07, 2.49, I 2 =59.04%) (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1. A total of 19 studies were included in the review with data of 1504 implants [8,9,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. Fourteen were single-arm studies assessing only outcomes of implants placed simultaneously with onlay bone grafts [8,[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32].…”

Section: Details Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fourteen were single-arm studies assessing only outcomes of implants placed simultaneously with onlay bone grafts [8,[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. Five studies compared outcomes of simultaneous vs delayed placement of implants [9,[16][17][18][19]. Details of all single-arm studies are presented in Table 1.…”

Section: Details Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All were retrospective cohort studies conducted in the USA, Sweden, Spain, and Turkey. Three studies used only iliac grafts [16,18,19]; one used iliac and cranial grafts [17] while the remaining study reported the use of intra-oral grafts [9]. The number of implants in the simultaneous placement group varied from 21 to 68 while in the delayed placement group varied from 61 to 147.…”

Section: Details Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Dental implants placed in resorbed alveolar ridges reconstructed with iliac crest autogenous onlay grafts: A 26-year median follow-up retrospective study

Maiorana

Poli

Mascellaro

et al. 2019

Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison between peri-implant bone level changes of implants placed during and 3 months after iliac bone grafting

Cited by 8 publications

References 33 publications

Tooth preservation vs. extraction and implant placement in periodontally compromised patients: A systematic review and analysis of studies

Tooth preservation vs. extraction and implant placement in periodontally compromised patients: A systematic review and analysis of studies

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

Dental implants placed in resorbed alveolar ridges reconstructed with iliac crest autogenous onlay grafts: A 26-year median follow-up retrospective study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About