Bone regeneration for dental implant placement: A 5-year retrospective

​study of 358 cases

Lampros Goutzanis, Chara Chatzichalepli, Panagiotis Goutzanis, Michail Mastrogeorgiou, Dimitrios Avgoustidis
 

DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.54936/haoms233171183

SUMMARY: 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 max- illary 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 re- cords, 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 re- generation was GBR (n=184, 51.3%), followed by sinus floor elevation (n=162, 45.3%) and autologous onlay 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 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 appears to have the most predictable outcomes in terms of mandibular or maxillary bone augmentation.
 
KEY WORDS: GBR, sinus lift, onlay bone block grafts, bone augmentation, bone regeneration

​
REFERENCES

1. Buser D, Sennerby L, De Bruyn H: Modern implant dentist- ry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions. Periodontol 2000. 2017;73(1):7- 21.
2. Wallace S, Gellin R: Clinical evaluation of freeze-dried cancel- lous block allografts for ridge augmentation and implant place- ment in the maxilla. Implant Dent. 2010;19(4):272-279.
3. Chiapasco M, Di Martino G, Anello T, Zaniboni M, Romeo E: Fresh frozen versus autogenous iliac bone for the rehabilita- tion of the extremely atrophic maxilla with onlay grafts and endosseous implants: preliminary results of a prospective com- parative study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17(1):e251- e266.
4. Sanz-Sánchez I, Ortiz-Vigón A, Sanz-Martín I, Figuero E, Sanz M: Effectiveness of Lateral Bone Augmentation on the Alveo- lar Crest Dimension: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2015;94(9):128s-142s.
5. Morad G, Khojasteh A: Cortical tenting technique versus on- lay layered technique for vertical augmentation of atrophic posterior mandibles: a split-mouth pilot study. Implant Dent. 2013;22(6):566-571.
6. Hämmerle CH, Jung RE, Feloutzis A: A systematic review of the survival of implants in bone sites augmented with barrier membranes (guided bone regeneration) in partially edentu- lous patients. J Clin Periodontol. 2002;29(3):226-231.
7. Chappuis V, Rahman L, Buser R, Janner SFM, Belser UC, Buser D: Effectiveness of Contour Augmentation with Guided Bone Regeneration: 10-Year Results. J Dent Res. 2018;97(3):266- 274.
8. Aghaloo TL, Moy PK: Which hard tissue augmentation tech- niques are the most successful in furnishing bony support for implant placement? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22:49- 70.
9. Elgali I, Omar O, Dahlin C, Thomsen P: Guided bone regen- eration: materials and biological mechanisms revisited. Eur J Oral Sci. 2017;125(5):315-337.
10. McAllister BS, Haghighat K: Bone Augmentation Techniques. Journal of Periodontology. 2007;78(3):377-396.
11. Rocchietta I, Fontana F, Simion M: Clinical outcomes of verti- cal bone augmentation to enable dental implant placement: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35(8 Suppl), 203- 215.
12. Badr M, Coulthard P, Alissa R, Oliver R: The efficacy of plate- let-rich plasma in grafted maxillae. A randomised clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2010;3(3):233-244.
13. Anitua E, Orive G, Pla R, Roman P, Serrano V, Andía I: The ef- fects of PRGF on bone regeneration and on titanium implant osseointegration in goats: a histologic and histomorphometric study. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2009;91(1):158-165.
14. Barbu HM, Andreescu CF, Lorean A, Kolerman R, Moraru L, Mortellaro C, et al: Comparison of Two Techniques for Lateral Ridge Augmentation in Mandible With Ramus Block Graft. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27(3):662-667.


15. Severi M, Simonelli A, Farina R, Tu YK, Lan CH, Shih MC, et al: Effect of lateral bone augmentation procedures in correcting peri-implant bone dehiscence and fenestration defects: A sys- tematic review and network meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2022;24(2):251-264.
16. Lee SA, Lee CT, Fu MM, Elmisalati W, Chuang SK: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for the management of limited vertical height in the posterior re- gion: short implants (5 to 8 mm) vs longer implants (> 8 mm) in vertically augmented sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(5):1085-1097.
17. Pereira RS, Pavelski MD, Griza GL, Boos F, Hochuli-Vieira E: Prospective evaluation of morbidity in patients who under- went autogenous bone-graft harvesting from the mandibular symphysis and retromolar regions. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019;21(4):753-757.
18. Wang HL, Boyapati L: “PASS” principles for predictable bone regeneration. Implant Dent. 2006;15(1):8-17.
19. Tsai CF, Pan WL, Pan YP, Chan CP, Ju YR, Wang YM, et al: Comparison of 4 sinus augmentation techniques for implant placement with residual alveolar bone height ≤3 mm. MEDI- CINE, 2020;99(46).
20. Fugazzotto PA. Augmentation of the posterior maxilla: a proposed hierarchy of treatment selection. J Periodontol. 2003;74(11):1682-1691.
21. Zitzmann NU, Schärer P: Sinus elevation procedures in the resorbed posterior maxilla. Comparison of the crestal and lat- eral approaches. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998;85(1):8-17.
22. Guan X, Zhang J, Chen Y, Han J, Yu M, Zhou Y. Changes in bone graft height and influencing factors after sinus floor augmentation by using the lateral window approach: A clinical retrospective study of 1 to 2 years. J Prosthet Dent. 2021: S0022-3913(21)00583-7.
23. Khoury F, Javed F, Romanos GE: Sinus Augmentation Failure and Postoperative Infections Associated with Prophylactic Clindamycin Therapy: An Observational Case Series. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33(5):1136-1139.
24. Testori T, Weinstein RL, Taschieri S, Del Fabbro M: Risk factor analysis following maxillary sinus augmentation: a ret- rospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(5):1170-1176.
25. Brugnami F, Caiazzo A, Leone C: Local intraoral autologous bone harvesting for dental implant treatment: alternative sources and criteria of choice. Keio J Med. 2009;58(1):24-28.
26. Becker ST, Warnke PH, Behrens E, Wiltfang, J: Morbidity after iliac crest bone graft harvesting over an anterior versus poste- rior approach. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69(1):48-53.
27. Cordaro L, Amadé DS, Cordaro M: Clinical results of alveolar ridge augmentation with mandibular block bone grafts in par- tially edentulous patients prior to implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13(1):103-111.

How to cite this article:

View the full-text PDF:

haoms_2022_v23_n3_article_2.pdf
File Size:	246 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---