Matteo Chiapasco1, Marco Zaniboni, Maurizio Boisco. 1. Unit of Oral Surgery, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Dentistry, San Paolo Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. matteo.chiapasco@unimi.it
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To analyze publications related to augmentation procedures and to evaluate the success of different surgical techniques for ridge reconstruction and the survival/success rates of implants placed in the augmented areas. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Clinical investigations published in English involving at least 5 patients and with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were included. The following procedures were considered: a) Guided bone regeneration (GBR); 2) Onlay bone grafts; 3) Inlay grafts; 4) Bone splitting for ridge expansion (RE); 5) Distraction osteogenesis (DO); and 6) Revascularized flaps. Success rates of augmentation procedures and related morbidity, as well as survival and success rates of implants placed in the augmented sites were analyzed. RESULTS: Success rates of surgical procedures ranged from 60% to 100% for GBR, from 92% to 100% for onlay bone grafts, from 98% to 100% for ridge expansion techniques, from 96,7% to 100% for DO, and was 87.5% for revascularized flaps, whereas survival rates of implants ranged from 92% to 100% for GBR, from 60% to 100% for onlay bone grafts, from 91% to 97.3% for RE, from 90.4% to 100% for DO, and, finally, was 88.2% for revascularized flaps. CONCLUSION: On the basis of available data it was shown that it was difficult to demonstrate that a particular surgical procedure offered better outcome as compared to another. The main limit encountered in this review has been the overall poor methodological quality of the published articles. Therefore larger well-designed long term trials are needed.
OBJECTIVES: To analyze publications related to augmentation procedures and to evaluate the success of different surgical techniques for ridge reconstruction and the survival/success rates of implants placed in the augmented areas. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Clinical investigations published in English involving at least 5 patients and with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were included. The following procedures were considered: a) Guided bone regeneration (GBR); 2) Onlay bone grafts; 3) Inlay grafts; 4) Bone splitting for ridge expansion (RE); 5) Distraction osteogenesis (DO); and 6) Revascularized flaps. Success rates of augmentation procedures and related morbidity, as well as survival and success rates of implants placed in the augmented sites were analyzed. RESULTS: Success rates of surgical procedures ranged from 60% to 100% for GBR, from 92% to 100% for onlay bone grafts, from 98% to 100% for ridge expansion techniques, from 96,7% to 100% for DO, and was 87.5% for revascularized flaps, whereas survival rates of implants ranged from 92% to 100% for GBR, from 60% to 100% for onlay bone grafts, from 91% to 97.3% for RE, from 90.4% to 100% for DO, and, finally, was 88.2% for revascularized flaps. CONCLUSION: On the basis of available data it was shown that it was difficult to demonstrate that a particular surgical procedure offered better outcome as compared to another. The main limit encountered in this review has been the overall poor methodological quality of the published articles. Therefore larger well-designed long term trials are needed.
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: Ioannis Tilaveridis; Maria Lazaridou; Ioannis Dimitrakopoulos; Nicolas Lazaridis; Charis Charis Journal: Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2011-10-04
Authors: I Sanz-Martin; L Ferrantino; F Vignoletti; J Nuñez; N Baldini; M Duvina; J Alcaraz; M Sanz Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 3.573