Localized Ridge Augmentation/Preservation. A Systematic Review

Fiorellini, Joseph P.; Nevins, M

doi:10.1902/annals.2003.8.1.321

Cited by 151 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Bone augmentation has been assessed in several previous workshops (Jensen et al 1998, Hammerle 1999, Simion 1999, ten Bruggenkate 1999, Hammerle et al 2002, Fiorellini et al 2003, Wallace et al 2003, Chiapasco et al 2006, Aghaloo and Moy 2007.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in bone augmentation to enable dental implant placement: Consensus Report of the Sixth European Workshop on Periodontology

Tonetti¹,

Hämmerle²

2008

J Clinic Periodontology

150

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Bone augmentation procedures to enable dental implant placement are frequently performed in practice. Methods: In this session the European Workshop on Periodontology discussed the evidence in support of the procedures and examined both adverse events and implant performance in the augmented bone. While the available evidence improved both in quantity and quality since previous workshops the conclusions that could be drawn were limited by elements of design and/or reporting that are amenable to improvement. Results: With regards to lateral bone augmentation, a sizable body of evidence supports its use to enable dental implant placement. The group recognized the potential for vertical ridge augmentation procedures to allow implant placement in clinical practice but questioned the applicability of these data to a wider array of operators and clinical settings. With regards to sinus floor augmentation, perforation of the sinus membrane, graft infection and graft loss resulting in inability of implant placement were the major reported adverse events. In cases with <6 mm of residual bone height, 17% of subjects experienced implant loss in the first 3 years following lateral window augmentation. After trans‐alveolar sinus floor augmentation 11% of subjects experienced implant loss over 3 years. Significant research activity (both pre‐clinical and clinical) was identified in the area of growth factors‐induced bone augmentation. Initial clinical trials support the potential of BMP‐2. Conclusions: Clinically, the consensus highlighted that bone augmentation procedures can fail and that implants placed in these areas do not necessarily enjoy the high long‐term survival rates of dental implants placed in pristine sites. The consensus emphasized the research need to answer questions on: (i) long‐term performance of dental implants placed in augmented bone; (ii) the clinical performance of dental implants placed in augmented or pristine sites; and (iii) the clinical benefits of bone augmentation with respect to alternative treatments.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in bone augmentation to enable dental implant placement: Consensus Report of the Sixth European Workshop on Periodontology

Tonetti¹,

Hämmerle²

2008

J Clinic Periodontology

150

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These data are comparable to those reported for implants placed into native, untreated sites. For more data the reader is referred to a few systematic reviews that have focused on the subject of survival and success rates of implants placed within regenerated bone (Hammerle et al 2002;Fiorellini & Nevins 2003;Chiapasco et al 2006). …”

Section: Alveolar Ridge Preservation After Extractionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Augmentation and Preservation of the Alveolar Process and Alveolar Ridge of Bone

Tal¹,

Artzi²,

Kolerman³

et al. 2012

Bone Regeneration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, these studies do not describe implant survival nor implant success rates following the socket preservation procedures. In a systematic review (Fiorellini & Nevins 2003) evaluating dental implant survival rates, the authors concluded that implant survival was www.intechopen.com similar between implants placed in native bone and implants placed in sites previously treated with ridge augmentation and preservation techniques. Notably, none of the 13 studies included in the analysis reported on survival rates of implants placed following socket preservation techniques.…”

Section: Load Timing and Marginal Bone Level Changesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crestal Bone Level Alterations in Implant Therapy

Koutouzis¹

2011

Implant Dentistry - A Rapidly Evolving Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Localized Ridge Augmentation/Preservation. A Systematic Review

Cited by 151 publications

References 17 publications

Advances in bone augmentation to enable dental implant placement: Consensus Report of the Sixth European Workshop on Periodontology

Advances in bone augmentation to enable dental implant placement: Consensus Report of the Sixth European Workshop on Periodontology

Augmentation and Preservation of the Alveolar Process and Alveolar Ridge of Bone

Crestal Bone Level Alterations in Implant Therapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About