BONE REGENERATION FOR DENTAL IMPLANT PLACEMENT: A 5-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE STUDY OF 358 CASES
Lampros Goutzanis1, Chara Chatzichalepli2, Panagiotis Goutzanis3, Michail Mastrogeorgiou4, Dimitrios Avgoustidis5.
1Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
2DDS, MSc, Postgraduate Student in Dentoalveolar Surgery, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
3DMD, MClinDent Oral Surgery, Private Practice, Athens, Greece
4DDS, Private Practice, Athens, Greece
5MD, DDS, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon, Private Practice, Athens, Greece
Doi: 10.54936/haoms231o23
Introduction: Bone regeneration techniques are essential prior to dental implant placement in cases of mandibular or maxillary bone deficit. Depending on the area and the extent of bone loss, as well as the type of prosthetic rehabilitation to be applied, different bone regeneration techniques can be used.
Aim: The scope of this study is to analyze a series of patients that underwent mandibular or maxillary bone regeneration, in effort to highlight the most widely used techniques and their outcome.
Materials and Methods: 358 cases that underwent maxillary or mandibular bone regeneration in an oral and maxillofacial private clinic within the last 5 years are thoroughly analyzed retrospectively in terms of various parameters from their demographic and medical records, the type of bone regeneration technique that was applied and the final bone augmentation and implant osseointegration outcome.
Results: The most widely used technique for bone regeneration was GBR (n=184, 51.3%), followed by sinus floor elevation (n=162, 45.3%) and autologous bone block grafts (n=12, 3.4%). In 1 case of GBR with a non-resorbable membrane, membrane exposure was noted. In 5 cases of sinus lift, inflammation occurred. In one case with bone block grafts from the iliac crest, inflammation was presented a few weeks after surgery and one of the bone blocks was partially resorbed.
Conclusions: GBR with a resorbable membrane barrier and sinus lift appeared to have the most predictable outcomes in terms of mandibular or maxillary bone augmentation.
Lampros Goutzanis1, Chara Chatzichalepli2, Panagiotis Goutzanis3, Michail Mastrogeorgiou4, Dimitrios Avgoustidis5.
1Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
2DDS, MSc, Postgraduate Student in Dentoalveolar Surgery, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
3DMD, MClinDent Oral Surgery, Private Practice, Athens, Greece
4DDS, Private Practice, Athens, Greece
5MD, DDS, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon, Private Practice, Athens, Greece
Doi: 10.54936/haoms231o23
Introduction: Bone regeneration techniques are essential prior to dental implant placement in cases of mandibular or maxillary bone deficit. Depending on the area and the extent of bone loss, as well as the type of prosthetic rehabilitation to be applied, different bone regeneration techniques can be used.
Aim: The scope of this study is to analyze a series of patients that underwent mandibular or maxillary bone regeneration, in effort to highlight the most widely used techniques and their outcome.
Materials and Methods: 358 cases that underwent maxillary or mandibular bone regeneration in an oral and maxillofacial private clinic within the last 5 years are thoroughly analyzed retrospectively in terms of various parameters from their demographic and medical records, the type of bone regeneration technique that was applied and the final bone augmentation and implant osseointegration outcome.
Results: The most widely used technique for bone regeneration was GBR (n=184, 51.3%), followed by sinus floor elevation (n=162, 45.3%) and autologous bone block grafts (n=12, 3.4%). In 1 case of GBR with a non-resorbable membrane, membrane exposure was noted. In 5 cases of sinus lift, inflammation occurred. In one case with bone block grafts from the iliac crest, inflammation was presented a few weeks after surgery and one of the bone blocks was partially resorbed.
Conclusions: GBR with a resorbable membrane barrier and sinus lift appeared to have the most predictable outcomes in terms of mandibular or maxillary bone augmentation.