Vertical Ridge Gain with Various Bone Augmentation Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this systematic review was to determine the most effective alveolar augmentation technique for vertical bone gain. Materials and Methods A systematic search to select clinical trials and retrospective studies done on patients with reduced vertical bone height was conducted. The intervention of interest was autogenous block graft done compared to procedures such as distraction osteogenesis (DO), particulate grafting, block plus particulate grafting with titanium mesh, and tent pole technique in systematically healthy adult patients age 18 and older. The following electronic databases were explored: PubMed, CINAHL, and Dental and Oral Science. A supplementary manual search of published full‐text articles from January 2005 to December 2017 was done using Google Scholar. Grey literature was also sought using greylit.org. The review protocol was registered at the Prospero registry (CRD # 42017072432). The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using EPOC criteria. Meta‐analysis was performed using Review Manager for studies with quantitative data on mean values of vertical bone gain and bone resorption achieved with various bone augmentation techniques. Random effect model was used. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated using the I2 statistic. Results A total of 2322 articles were found. After excluding the irrelevant papers, only 8 papers were finally selected for the detailed evaluation. Of these 8, 5 were clinical trials, and 3 were retrospective studies. Four studies were on DO, 2 on particulate grafting, 1 on autogenous block grafting plus particulate grafting, and 1 on tent pole grafting. The control group in all studies were autogenous block graft. Meta‐analysis revealed no significant difference between DO and autogenous block grafting for vertical bone gain (mean difference 0.82 [–1.28, 2.91]). Similarly, no significant difference was observed in the 2 techniques for bone resorption (mean difference 0.38 [–0.23, 0.99]). Conclusions DO was not superior to autogenous block grafting for vertical bone augmentation. Both techniques were associated with a number of complications. There was no difference in the bone resorption observed in the 2 techniques. No conclusive results can be drawn on other techniques on account of limited data.

Transforming Growth Factor-β3/Chitosan Sponge (TGF-β3/CS) Facilitates Osteogenic Differentiation of Human Periodontal Ligament Stem Cells

“…The current clinical techniques mainly used for the treatment of alveolar bone defects [4] are bone grafting and guided bone regeneration (GBR). Autologous bone grafting is considered to be the gold standard for bone repair [5,6,7,8], but it has many limitations such as long operation and recovery times, possible insufficient bone mass in patients, and numerous complications [9,10]. GBR uses a barrier to provide space that is filled with new bone to compensate for deficiencies [11,12].…”

Bone quality and quantity of the mandibular symphyseal region in autogenous bone grafting using cone-beam computed tomography: a cross-sectional study

“…Intraoral bone grafts are often associated with more favorable outcomes compared with extraoral bone grafts [ 4 ]. Different intraoral sites are available for bone harvesting, including the mandibular symphysis, ramus, internal and external oblique ridges, and the maxillary tuberosity [ 5 ]. The mandibular ramus is the first option for bone harvesting due to fewer postoperative complications.…”

Interest and outcomes of alveolar distraction osteogenesis for dental implant rehabilitation following mandibular reconstruction

“…An alveolar vertical augmentation could prevent these outcomes, and several methods exist such as Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR), autologous bone blocks, osteotomy and alveolar distraction osteogenesis (ADO) [4]. Using autologous bone graft technique for severe vertical bone atrophy leads to higher risk of wound dehiscence with bone graft loss due to soft tissue defect.…”