Successful implant restoration without the use of membrane barriers

Clarizio, Louis F.

doi:10.1016/s0278-2391(99)90337-3

Cited by 11 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…5). 49,53,217,218 This combination approach can be used for more involved defects than those applicable for the individual approaches alone 218,219 . Without underlying graft materials or reinforcement with the use of tenting screws, 220 barrier membranes may be compressed into the space of the bony defect by the overlying soft tissue during healing 27,49,123,221 .…”

Section: Bone Augmentation Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Without underlying graft materials or reinforcement with the use of tenting screws, 220 barrier membranes may be compressed into the space of the bony defect by the overlying soft tissue during healing 27,49,123,221 . In many situations, a membrane may not be required, and the graft material alone can be effective 219 . In some reports, 192,222 resorption was reported with autografts when no membrane was used.…”

Section: Bone Augmentation Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bone Augmentation Techniques

McAllister

Haghighat

2007

Journal of Periodontology

597

558

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The advent of osseointegration and advances in biomaterials and techniques have contributed to increased application of dental implants in the restoration of partial and completely edentulous patients. Often, in these patients, soft and hard tissue defects result from a variety of causes, such as infection, trauma, and tooth loss. These create an anatomically less favorable foundation for ideal implant placement. For prosthetic‐driven dental implant therapy, reconstruction of the alveolar bone through a variety of regenerative surgical procedures has become predictable; it may be necessary prior to implant placement or simultaneously at the time of implant surgery to provide a restoration with a good long‐term prognosis. Regenerative procedures are used for socket preservation, sinus augmentation, and horizontal and vertical ridge augmentation.Methods: A broad overview of the published findings in the English literature related to various bone augmentation techniques is outlined. A comprehensive computer‐based search was performed using various databases that include Medline and PubMed. A total of 267 papers were considered, with non‐peer‐reviewed articles eliminated as much as possible.Results: The techniques for reconstruction of bony defects that are reviewed in this paper include the use of particulate bone grafts and bone graft substitutes, barrier membranes for guided bone regeneration, autogenous and allogenic block grafts, and the application of distraction osteogenesis.Conclusions: Many different techniques exist for effective bone augmentation. The approach is largely dependent on the extent of the defect and specific procedures to be performed for the implant reconstruction. It is most appropriate to use an evidenced‐based approach when a treatment plan is being developed for bone augmentation cases.

show abstract

Section: Bone Augmentation Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Bone Augmentation Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone Augmentation Techniques

McAllister

Haghighat

2007

Journal of Periodontology

597

558

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The expansion of GBR to a large variety of bone defect types led to the widespread use of this technique in clinical practice [9,134,135]. In some cases, the use of barrier membranes is not warranted and the graft material can be used alone to fill the defect [136]. This is commonly referred to as bone replacement graft.…”

Section: Techniques For Vertical Bone Augmentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bone resorption has been reported with the use of autografts without membranes [123,137]. Therefore, membranes are utilized in non-space making bone defects that require space maintenance and prevention of soft tissue ingrowth where bone regeneration is required [18,136,138]. In most cases, the use of membranes alone for GBR is associated with membrane compression into the defect space by overlying soft tissues [139,140,141,142].…”

Section: Techniques For Vertical Bone Augmentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone Replacement Materials and Techniques Used for Achieving Vertical Alveolar Bone Augmentation

Sima²,

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alveolar bone augmentation in vertical dimension remains the holy grail of periodontal tissue engineering. Successful dental implant placement for restoration of edentulous sites depends on the quality and quantity of alveolar bone available in all spatial dimensions. There are several surgical techniques used alone or in combination with natural or synthetic graft materials to achieve vertical alveolar bone augmentation. While continuously improving surgical techniques combined with the use of auto- or allografts provide the most predictable clinical outcomes, their success often depends on the status of recipient tissues. The morbidity associated with donor sites for auto-grafts makes these techniques less appealing to both patients and clinicians. New developments in material sciences offer a range of synthetic replacements for natural grafts to address the shortcoming of a second surgical site and relatively high resorption rates. This narrative review focuses on existing techniques, natural tissues and synthetic biomaterials commonly used to achieve vertical bone height gain in order to successfully restore edentulous ridges with implant-supported prostheses.

show abstract

“…GBR membranes are used to prevent soft tissue infiltration and preserve the bone graft material and space for more enhanced bone regeneration . Ideally, the GBR membranes should be: (a) biocompatible to not adversely affect healing and tissue formation, (b) biodegradable to avoid a second surgery, (c) cell occlusive to prevent infiltration of soft tissues into graft space, (d) flexible and strong to be clinically manageable, (e) maintain barrier function for 4–6 months before degrading to maximize regenerated bone volume, (g) porous to allow for nutrient exchange in the graft area while preventing soft‐tissue infiltration . Current commercial GBR membranes are based on polytetrafluoroethylene, collagen, or synthetic materials.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of biocompatibility and degradation of chitosan nanofiber membrane crosslinked with genipin

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chitosan, a natural polysaccharide, has demonstrated potential as a degradable biocompatible guided bone regeneration membrane. This study aimed to evaluate the in vivo biocompatibility and degradation of chitosan nanofiber membranes, with and without genipin crosslinking as compared with a commercial collagen membrane in rat model. Chitosan nanofiber membranes, with and without genipin crosslinking, and collagen membrane (control) were implanted subcutaneously in the backs of 30 rats. The membranes were analyzed histologically at 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 weeks. Sections were viewed and graded by a blinded pathologist using a 4-point scoring system (0 = absent, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, and 3 = severe) to determine the tissue reaction to the membranes and to observe membrane degradation. There was no statistically significant difference in histological scores among chitosan and collagen membranes at different time points. Absence or minimal inflammation was observed in 57-74% of the membranes across all groups. Most chitosan membranes persisted for 16-20 weeks, whereas most collagen membranes disappeared by resorption at 12-16 weeks. The general tissue response to chitosan nanofiber membranes with and without genipin crosslinking, was similar to that of control commercial collagen membrane. However, the chitosan membranes exhibited slower degradation rates than collagen membranes.

show abstract

Successful implant restoration without the use of membrane barriers

Cited by 11 publications

References 17 publications

Bone Augmentation Techniques

Bone Augmentation Techniques

Bone Replacement Materials and Techniques Used for Achieving Vertical Alveolar Bone Augmentation

Evaluation of biocompatibility and degradation of chitosan nanofiber membrane crosslinked with genipin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About