Joseph P Fiorellini1, Marc L Nevins. 1. Department of Oral Medicine, Infection, and Immunity, Division of Periodontology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. joseph_fiorellini@hsdm.harvard.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osseointegrated implants have been documented as efficacious, however, their placement may be contraindicated in some patients due to insufficient bone volume. Techniques such as guided bone regeneration (GBR), immediate implantation, and distraction osteogenesis (DO) have been utilized as ridge enhancement therapies. RATIONALE: This systematic review evaluates dental implant survival rates in patients treated with ridge augmentation or preservation techniques. FOCUSED QUESTION: In patients requiring dental implant placement, what is the effect of localized ridge preservation versus implant placement without augmentation on implant survival and adverse effects? SEARCH PROTOCOL: MEDLINE and Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialized Trial Register were searched. Hand searches were performed on Clinical Oral Implants Research, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Periodontology, and Journal of Periodontal Research. All searches were performed for articles published through April 2002. SELECTION CRITERIA: Publications reporting survival rate of dental implants following ridge therapy were included in the analysis. Reports describing techniques were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Due to the absence of controlled studies, a meta-analysis was not performed. Descriptive statistics are used to report the data. MAIN RESULTS: 1. A total of 18 studies were included: 13 reporting on guided bone regeneration (GBR, 1,741 patients) and 5 on distraction osteogenesis (DO, 92 patients). 2. There is a high level of predictable implant survival in sites treated by GBR or DO. 3. These survival rates are similar to those of implants placed in native bone. REVIEWERS' INTERPRETATIONS: Survival rates were similar for both GBR and DO implants. These survival rates were similar to implants placed in native bone.
BACKGROUND: Osseointegrated implants have been documented as efficacious, however, their placement may be contraindicated in some patients due to insufficient bone volume. Techniques such as guided bone regeneration (GBR), immediate implantation, and distraction osteogenesis (DO) have been utilized as ridge enhancement therapies. RATIONALE: This systematic review evaluates dental implant survival rates in patients treated with ridge augmentation or preservation techniques. FOCUSED QUESTION: In patients requiring dental implant placement, what is the effect of localized ridge preservation versus implant placement without augmentation on implant survival and adverse effects? SEARCH PROTOCOL: MEDLINE and Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialized Trial Register were searched. Hand searches were performed on Clinical Oral Implants Research, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Periodontology, and Journal of Periodontal Research. All searches were performed for articles published through April 2002. SELECTION CRITERIA: Publications reporting survival rate of dental implants following ridge therapy were included in the analysis. Reports describing techniques were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Due to the absence of controlled studies, a meta-analysis was not performed. Descriptive statistics are used to report the data. MAIN RESULTS: 1. A total of 18 studies were included: 13 reporting on guided bone regeneration (GBR, 1,741 patients) and 5 on distraction osteogenesis (DO, 92 patients). 2. There is a high level of predictable implant survival in sites treated by GBR or DO. 3. These survival rates are similar to those of implants placed in native bone. REVIEWERS' INTERPRETATIONS: Survival rates were similar for both GBR and DO implants. These survival rates were similar to implants placed in native bone.
Authors: Paolo Tonelli; Marco Duvina; Luigi Barbato; Eleonora Biondi; Niccolò Nuti; Leila Brancato; Giovanna Delle Rose Journal: Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab Date: 2011-09
Authors: Attila Horváth; Nikos Mardas; Luis André Mezzomo; Ian G Needleman; Nikos Donos Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Marco Esposito; Maria Gabriella Grusovin; Pietro Felice; Georgios Karatzopoulos; Helen V Worthington; Paul Coulthard Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-10-07