Stability of Implants Placed in Augmented Posterior Mandible after Alveolar Osteotomy Using Resorbable Nonceramic Hydroxyapatite or Intraoral Autogenous Bone: 12‐Month Follow‐Up

Abstract

Within the limits of this study, the implants placed either in sites augmented with ncHA or autogenous bone seem to represent a safe and successful procedure, at least, after 12-month follow-up.

Segmental sandwich osteotomy of the posterior mandible in pre-implant surgery - A systematic review

“…All included articles were published in scientific journals in English, during the period 2006-2015. They consisted of 9 retrospective case reports or series (8-24), and 8 prospective randomized clinical trials (11-15,20,21,23). Six out of the eight clinical trials compared SSO with different rehabilitation techniques, such as short implants (12-15), alveolar osteogenesis (23), and onlay bone grafts (21).…”

“…Six out of the eight clinical trials compared SSO with different rehabilitation techniques, such as short implants (12-15), alveolar osteogenesis (23), and onlay bone grafts (21). The other two clinical trials compared the efficacy of various interpositional bone grafts and substitutes (11,20). Because of the significant heterogeneity of the research methods, the intervention characteristics and the outcome measures, only qualitative synthesis of the data of the included studies was performed.…”

A histological study of non-ceramic hydroxyapatite as a bone graft substitute material in the vertical bone augmentation of the posterior mandible using an interpositional inlay technique: A split mouth evaluation

“…These include block bone graft (Proussaefs et al 2002;Kawakami et al 2012), distraction osteogenesis (Chiapasco et al 2004), vertical guided bone regeneration with or without membranes (Simion et al 2007;Urban et al 2009), and short implants (< 8 mm) (Mangano et al 2013). While reconstruction of the alveolar process with bone augmentation may facilitate implant placement, the short-and long-term results may be influenced by the quality and quantity of the regenerated bone (Block & Haggerty 2009;Felice et al 2009).…”

“…This technique allows recipient sites to not only contain and stabilize the grafting material but also to allow blood flow between the osteotomized bone blocks, thus providing the sites with cells, soluble regulators, and nourishment (Kawakami et al 2012;Block & Haggerty 2009;Felice et al 2009;Smiler & Soltan 2006). Implant stability is a prerequisite for the long-term clinical success of implants, which depends on the quantity and quality of the local bone, the implant design and the surgical technique used (Gehrke et al 2014).…”

Strategies for alveolar ridge reconstruction and preservation for implant therapy

“…A number of ridge augmentation methods of implant therapy have been reported, including guided bone regeneration (GBR) [46,47], maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) [48][49][50][51], vertical and/or lateral alveolar ridge augmentation [52][53][54][55], and distraction [56,57]. In the GBR method, barrier membrane with or without titanium reinforcement composed of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) is used [58].…”