Comparison of Success Rate of Dental Implants Placed in Autogenous Bone Graft Regenerated Areas and Pristine Bone

Abstract

Autogenous bone grafting still has been considered as the “gold standard” and wildly used in the case of alveolar bone reconstruction. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the success rate of implants placed in autogenous block augmented ridges and implants placed in pristine bone (PB). This study included 113 patients. Fifty-three patients were treated with autogenous block grafts and particulate bone, after 6 months of healing implant placements were performed in autogenous bone augmented (ABA) areas. In 60 patients implant placement was performed, with no need for grafting and implants were placed into the PB. Follow-up data (pain, mobility, exudation from peri-implant space, success rate, marginal bone resorption) were collected after 5 years of prosthetic loading. The cumulative implant success rate at the 5-year examination was 92.45% for the ABA group and 85% for PB group. There were 3 failed implants in the ABA group and 3 in PB group. Average marginal bone loss was 1.47 mm on ABA group and 1.58 mm on PB group. No statistically significant differences for pain, exudation from peri-implant space, implant mobility, implant success, peri-implant bone loss parameters, and patient satisfaction level were found between groups. The obtained data demonstrated that the success rate of implants placed in regenerated areas are very similar to the success rate of implants those placed in PB.

Survival Rates of Dental Implants in Autogenous and Allogeneic Bone Blocks: A Systematic Review

“…The authors concluded that FFBA does not represent a safe alternative to AUBB [128], which they substantiated by a further study with corresponding results [128]. An implant survival rate of 100% was reported for implants inserted into both cortical AUBB and cortico-cancellous FFBA blocks applied for horizontal bone augmentations in two separate studies by the same authors [34,103], which emphasizes the feasibility of achieving similar results with AUBB and ALBB following the regeneration of horizontal bone defects. An ISR of 100% for both cohorts was reported by all comparative studies on AUBB and processed allogeneic bone blocks.…”

“…The survival of implants within grafting materials is probably the most crucial analysis, because the main purpose of bone grafting procedures is dental rehabilitation, which should last decades, and ideally, a lifetime. As for AUBB, two studies reported implant survival rates (ISRs) below 80% for cortico-cancellous iliac grafts with simultaneous [34] and delayed implants [74] in the maxilla, and both studies included totally edentulous patients. Both authors reasoned the loss of implants with marginal bone resorption, which was demonstrated to be increased within the first three years.…”

“…Both authors reasoned the loss of implants with marginal bone resorption, which was demonstrated to be increased within the first three years. Astrand et al concluded that proceeding with the resorption of AUBB, especially with grafts exhibiting large amounts of cortical bone, which is impervious to vascular infiltration, is one major challenge for the predictability and the long-term success of implants in AUBB [34]. In this context, Molly et al reported a significantly decreased marginal bone resorption of less than 1 mm associated with implants inserted into bone which was regenerated via titanium foil without a grafting material when compared to the marginal bone loss of implants placed in cortico-cancellous AUBB, which was 2.7 mm after 20 years, and hence demonstrated ongoing block resorption [74].…”

Management of Schneiderian membrane perforations during maxillary sinus floor augmentation with lateral approach in relation to subsequent implant survival rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) surgery with simultaneous or deferred placement of implants is a highly predictable surgical technique in cases of atrophic posterior maxilla [ 1 ], allowing implant-supported rehabilitation in cases where there would otherwise be insufficient remaining bone substrate for implant placement. MSFA achieves implant survival rates similar to those achieved in pristine bone [ 2 , 3 ]. During this surgical procedure, perforations of the sinus membrane may occur due either to iatrogenic causes derived from incorrect surgical handling or to anatomical considerations inherent to the individual patient, which can make the procedure difficult [ 4 , 5 ].…”

Advances in bone grafting techniques for dental implants: A comprehensive review

“…Autografts are often used in more complex cases and are associated with low risk of graft rejection or infection. 5 Allografts: Allografts are bone graft materials sourced from human donors, typically from cadavers. These grafts are processed and sterilized to remove cellular components while retaining the bone matrix.…”