2016
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-016-0057-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

To what extent residual alveolar ridge can be preserved by implant? A systematic review

Abstract: BackgroundIt has been reported that the load for (or to) implant-supported restoration may lead to bone remodeling as bone resorption and/or formation. While many authors supported the process of bone resorption, others elaborated bone apposition and increasing bone density close and remote to implant body (or fixture). This may suggest the role of the implant to reserve alveolar ridge from physiologic/pathologic resorption. The aim of this systematic review was to predict to how extend dental implants can pre… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 80 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This finding is supported by many studies [ 7 , 30 , 34 ] showing that approximately half number of chewing cycles, to halve the initial size of a test food, is required for patients wearing IRO prostheses as compared to patients wearing CD. This results in beneficial effects on masseter muscle thickness, MBF, and masticatory efficiency, and prevents the progression of alveolar bone resorption [ 35 , 36 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This finding is supported by many studies [ 7 , 30 , 34 ] showing that approximately half number of chewing cycles, to halve the initial size of a test food, is required for patients wearing IRO prostheses as compared to patients wearing CD. This results in beneficial effects on masseter muscle thickness, MBF, and masticatory efficiency, and prevents the progression of alveolar bone resorption [ 35 , 36 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In GBR, GTR, and related technologies, bone healing materials remain the most critical components of the technologies. Currently, the main clinical applications of GBR and GTR include autogenous bone [15], heterogeneous bone [16], allogeneic bone [17–19], and artificial synthetic materials [20]. The ideal bone healing materials should possess the following characteristics: 1) biocompatibility and non-toxicity; 2) biodegradability and absorbency; 3) a biological activity that simulates the structure of the bone matrix and promotes the regeneration of bone tissue [21].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Augmenting the bone around implants using fully resorbable grafting materials like β -TCP and CS may raise concerns regarding the long-term volume stability of the site. However, the placement of the implant at 12 weeks will increase the metabolic activity of the regenerated bone, while the subsequent loading of the implant will trigger the remodeling, and gradually enhance the density of the surrounding hard tissues [ 31 , 32 ]. Assuming that the newly formed hard tissue around the implants is high-quality vital bone with low content or no residual graft particles at all, it might be able to adapt successfully to the placement and loading of the implant and thus maintain its dimensions in a functional way.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%