Single‐staged vs. two‐staged implant placement using bone ring technique in vertically deficient alveolar ridges – Part 1: histomorphometric and micro‐CT analysis

Abstract

In the present type of bone defect, single-staged implant placement may be potentially useful to shorten an overall treatment period.

Comparison of clinical and radiographic parameters around short (6 to 8 mm in length) and long (11 mm in length) dental implants placed in patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus: 3‐year follow‐up results

“…Under such circumstances, additional surgical procedures (such as bone grafting) may be warranted before the placement of implants (Nakahara et al. ; Sakkas et al. ).…”

“…However, implant placement in areas with a compromised alveolar bone height may challenge clinicians. Under such circumstances, additional surgical procedures (such as bone grafting) may be warranted before the placement of implants (Nakahara et al 2016;Sakkas et al 2016). To minimize the possibility of adjunct surgical procedures (such as bone grafting and sinus Date: Accepted 6 July 2016…”

Comparison of autogenous and allograft bone rings in surgically created vertical bone defects around implants in a sheep model

“…Nakahara et al () reported similar histological findings and median total bone area in autogenous bone ring and two‐stage autogenous bone augmentation at 3 and 6 months of osseointegration period in mandible of Beagle dogs. They concluded that autogenous bone ring technique does not effect regenerative capacity of bone graft compared to two‐stage technique.…”

Comparison of in‐situ bone ring technique and tent‐pole technique for horizontally deficient alveolar ridge in the anterior maxilla

“…Due to the strong osteogenic capacity, autogenous bone is still taken as the gold standard for the rehabilitation of alveolar ridge volume . The so‐called bone ring technique, as using a ring‐shaped autogenous bone block, has emerged recently and been documented in several medical records showing excellent outcomes for the dimensional bone augmentation . Nevertheless, most of the reports only emphasizes on the vertical augmentation and the existing proposal for horizontal bone augmentation is lack of investigation on the stability of the biomaterials and reflects drawbacks such as aggravating intraoperative pain due to the secondary surgical site and occurrence of the accompanying complications such as infection and paraesthesia of chin due to the incisal nerve injury …”

“…21 The so-called bone ring technique, as using a ring-shaped autogenous bone block, has emerged recently and been documented in several medical records showing excellent outcomes for the dimensional bone augmentation. [22][23][24][25] Nevertheless, most of the reports only emphasizes on the vertical augmentation and the existing proposal for horizontal bone augmentation is lack of investigation on the stability of the biomaterials and reflects drawbacks such as aggravating intraoperative pain due to the secondary surgical site and occurrence of the accompanying complications such as infection and paraesthesia of chin due to the incisal nerve injury. 26,27 Consequently, in this study, we mainly compared the volume alteration and bone profile maintenance ability between in-situ bone ring and tent-pole technique for the localized bone defect in anterior area to evaluate their effects on horizontal bone augmentation.…”