Iliac Crest Fresh-Frozen Allografts Versus Autografts in Oral Pre-Prosthetic Bone Reconstructive Surgery

Abstract

FFB cannot be considered as successful and safe in alveolar bone reconstruction as autogenous bone grafting.

Horizontal Alveolar Ridge Augmentation with Allogeneic Bone Block Graft Compared with Autogenous Bone Block Graft: a Systematic Review

“…Biologic complications including soft tissue dehiscence, graft exposure, partial and total graft loss have been reported in a systematic review after HARA with autogenous bone block [59]. Moreover, temporary and permanent paraesthesia as well as gait disturbances have been described after harvesting autogenous bone graft in conjunction with HARA [47,62,66]. No biologic or technical complications were reported in the comparative study of the present systematic review [29].…”

“…No biologic or technical complications were reported in the comparative study of the present systematic review [29]. However, a previous published study assessing HARA with allogeneic bone block reported dehiscence and graft exposure as well as partial and total loss of graft before and after implant placement compared with no complications after HARA with autogenous bone block [62]. Likewise, graft exposure and loss have been described after HARA with allogeneic bone block compared with no biologic complications with autogenous bone block [67].…”

“…However, histomorphometric analysis of bone samples obtained after HARA with FFA revealed no statistically significant difference in percentage of lamellar bone and new bone formation compared with autogenous bone block, after seven to nine months [62]. Qualitative histologic analysis of biopsies obtained from allogeneic bone block frequently showed areas of non-viable bone, with empty lacunae and poor bone remodelling in the most distant portions from the recipient bed [62]. These results are in accordance with a non-comparative study of the present systematic review disclosing 62% non-vital bone volume after HARA with FFA [34].…”

“…A statistically significant larger amount of vital bone was revealed after HARA with autogenous bone block compared with FFA, after six to eight months [19]. However, histomorphometric analysis of bone samples obtained after HARA with FFA revealed no statistically significant difference in percentage of lamellar bone and new bone formation compared with autogenous bone block, after seven to nine months [62]. Qualitative histologic analysis of biopsies obtained from allogeneic bone block frequently showed areas of non-viable bone, with empty lacunae and poor bone remodelling in the most distant portions from the recipient bed [62].…”

“…A randomized controlled trial assessing HARA with FFA demonstrated no statistically significant differences in calcified tissue, new bone formation and remaining graft material after four months compared with six months, indicating no beneficial effect of a healing period longer than four months prior to implant placement [56]. Amount of bone regeneration after HARA with allogeneic bone block compared with autogenous bone block has been previously assessed in controlled trials [19,62], and randomized controlled trials [20]. A statistically significant larger amount of vital bone was revealed after HARA with autogenous bone block compared with FFA, after six to eight months [19].…”