Comparison of implant primary stability between maxillary edentulous ridges receiving intramembranous origin block grafts

Monje, Alberto; Monje, Florencio; Suárez, Fernando; González-García, Raúl; Villanueva-Alcojol, Laura; Nogales, Agustín García; Galindo‐Moreno, Pablo; Wang, Hom‐Lay

doi:10.4317/medoral.18732

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The implant stability quotient should therefore be considered as a supplementary instrument to the clinical and radiographic examination [49]. Previous studies have demonstrated acceptable implant stability quotient following LARA with an autogenous bone block graft [50,51]. In the present systematic review, the implant stability quotient was solely assessed in one noncomparative study revealing high values at secondstage surgery following LARA with an autogenous tooth block graft [33].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lateral Alveolar Ridge Augmentation with Autogenous Tooth Block Graft Compared with Autogenous Bone Block Graft: a Systematic Review

Starch‐Jensen¹,

Vitenson²,

Deluiz³

et al. 2022

JOMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The objective of the present systematic review was to evaluate the current knowledge of implant treatment outcome following lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with autogenous tooth block graft compared with autogenous bone block graft prior to implant placement. Material and Methods: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library search in combination with hand-search of relevant journals was conducted including human studies published in English through December 20, 2021. Comparative and non-comparative studies assessing lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with autogenous tooth block graft were included. Quality and risk-of-bias assessment were evaluated by Cochrane risk of bias tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and GRADE system. Results: One comparative study characterized by low grade and two non-comparative studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. No significant difference in short-term implant survival, health status of the peri-implant tissue or frequency of complications between the two treatment modalities was observed. Postoperative dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge width were significant diminished with tooth block compared with bone block (P = 0.0029). Consequently, the gain in alveolar ridge width was significantly higher with tooth block, after 26 weeks (P = 0.014). However, a higher frequency of short-term peri-implant mucositis was observed with tooth block. Conclusions: Lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with tooth block seems to be a suitable alternative to bone block. However, results of the present systematic review are based on short-term studies involving small patient samples. Further long-term randomized controlled trials are therefore needed before definite conclusions can be provided about the beneficial use of tooth block compared with bone block.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…The HSPIT is frequently used for defining a successful implant treatment outcome [50,51]. A clinical healthy peri-implant tissue is characterized by absence of erythema, bleeding on probing, swelling, and suppuration [52].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lateral Alveolar Ridge Augmentation with Autogenous Tooth Block Graft Compared with Autogenous Bone Block Graft: a Systematic Review

Starch‐Jensen¹,

Vitenson²,

Deluiz³

et al. 2022

JOMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, the graft harvesting can be performed in the same surgery and under local anesthesia (25). On the contrary, iliac crest is an endochondral bone and it displays a more complete graft resorption during healing although this area can provide larger blocks than intraoral autogenous bone grafts (26). Despite of that, selected studies (18,19) showed similar results for bone resorption of ABGs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo determine if alveolar vertical distraction osteogenesis obtains better results compared to other bone regeneration treatments (guided bone regeneration with membranes and / or filling material, or autogenous bone graft) in terms of bone gain, complications, and implant survival and success rates.Material and MethodsAn electronic search was performed in Pubmed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library and Scopus databases in March 2017. Besides, a manual search was carried out. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials published within the last 10 years with at least 1 year of follow-up after implant placement. No language restriction was applied. Exclusion criteria were studies in patients with bone defects produced by trauma, congenital malformation or oncologic surgical treatment. The methodological quality of the selected studies was evaluated by means of the Cochrane Collaboration’s Tool for assessing risk of bias. The reports were classified into different levels of recommendation according to the “Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy “.ResultsOut of 221 articles, two randomized controlled trials were finally selected for the inclusion in the systematic review. Bone gain and complications were higher with the alveolar vertical distraction osteogenesis compared to the autologous bone graft. There was higher bone resorption with the autologous bone graft. Implant survival and success rates were similar between studies, despite of the used technique.ConclusionsBoth alveolar distraction osteogenesis and autogenous bone graft are effective bone regeneration techniques for the treatment of mandibular vertical bone atrophy. A level B recommendation can be established for the use of alveolar vertical distraction osteogenesis for the treatment of the mandibular vertical bone atrophy. Key words:Distraction osteogenesis, alveolar ridge augmentation, alveolar bone loss.

show abstract

“…26 RFA was shown to correlate with the amount of cortical bone height. 27,28 In this study, a marginal difference (P = .08) was found between both groups, favoring the ramus graft, therefore suggesting that both calvarial and ramus block grafts provided implants with similar initial stability. The fact that the bone density was similar between the two groups further supported the finding of similar RFA results between the two groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Comparison of Microstructures Between Block Grafts from the Mandibular Ramus and Calvarium for Horizontal Bone Augmentation of the Maxilla: A Case Series Study

Monje¹,

Monje²,

Chan

et al. 2013

Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary purpose of this clinical study was to compare architectural metric parameters using microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) between sites grafted with blocks harvested from the mandibular ramus and calvarium for horizontal bone augmentation in the maxilla. The second aim was to compare the primary stability of implants placed in both types of block grafts. Ten consecutive healthy partially edentulous patients requiring extensive horizontal bone reconstruction in the maxilla were included. A total of 14 block grafts (7 each from the mandibular ramus and calvarium) were studied. After 4 to 6 months of healing, 41 implants were placed: 24 implants (58.5%) in calvarial (group 1) and 17 (41.5 %) in ramus grafts (group 2). A resonance frequency analysis (RFA) was performed to test implant stability. Furthermore, two biopsy specimens were randomly selected for histomorphometric analysis. Micro-CT analyses showed no significant difference in the morphometric parametric values analyzed between groups. Furthermore, RFA also showed no difference between groups. However, slightly higher RFA values were noted for implants placed in ramus grafts. Bone quality, as assessed by micro-CT and histomorphometric analyses, was similar in both ramus and calvarial block grafts. In addition, there was no difference in primary implant stability between groups. (Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013;33:e153-e161.

show abstract

Comparison of implant primary stability between maxillary edentulous ridges receiving intramembranous origin block grafts

Cited by 6 publications

References 18 publications

Lateral Alveolar Ridge Augmentation with Autogenous Tooth Block Graft Compared with Autogenous Bone Block Graft: a Systematic Review

Lateral Alveolar Ridge Augmentation with Autogenous Tooth Block Graft Compared with Autogenous Bone Block Graft: a Systematic Review

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

Comparison of Microstructures Between Block Grafts from the Mandibular Ramus and Calvarium for Horizontal Bone Augmentation of the Maxilla: A Case Series Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About