PURPOSE: To test (a) whether and when bone augmentation procedures are necessary and (b) which is the most effective augmentation technique for specific clinical indications. Trials were divided into 3 categories: (1) major vertical or horizontal bone augmentation (or both); (2) implants placed in extraction sockets; (3) fenestrated implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An exhaustive search was conducted for all randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing different techniques and materials for augmenting bone for implant treatment reporting the outcome of implant therapy at least to abutment connection. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted on October 1, 2005. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs of 30 potentially eligible trials reporting the outcome of 332 patients were suitable for inclusion. Six trials evaluated techniques for vertical and/or horizontal bone augmentation. Four trials evaluated techniques of bone grafting for implants placed in extraction sockets, and 3 trials evaluated techniques to treat fenestrated implants. CONCLUSIONS: Major bone grafting procedures of extremely resorbed mandibles may not be justified. Bone substitutes may replace autogenous bone for sinus lift procedures of extremely atrophic sinuses. Both guided bone regeneration procedures and distraction osteogenesis can be used to augment bone vertically, but it is unclear which is the most efficient. It is unclear whether augmentation procedures are needed at immediate single implants placed in fresh extraction sockets; however, sites treated with barrier + Bio-Oss showed a higher position of the gingival margin than sites treated with barriers alone. More bone was regenerated around fenestrated implants with nonresorbable barriers than without barriers; however, it remains unclear whether such bone is of benefit to the patient. Bone morphogenetic proteins may enhance bone formation around implants grafted with Bio-Oss, but there was no reliable evidence supporting the efficacy of other active agents, such as platelet-rich plasma, in conjunction with implant treatment.
PURPOSE: To test (a) whether and when bone augmentation procedures are necessary and (b) which is the most effective augmentation technique for specific clinical indications. Trials were divided into 3 categories: (1) major vertical or horizontal bone augmentation (or both); (2) implants placed in extraction sockets; (3) fenestrated implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An exhaustive search was conducted for all randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing different techniques and materials for augmenting bone for implant treatment reporting the outcome of implant therapy at least to abutment connection. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted on October 1, 2005. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs of 30 potentially eligible trials reporting the outcome of 332 patients were suitable for inclusion. Six trials evaluated techniques for vertical and/or horizontal bone augmentation. Four trials evaluated techniques of bone grafting for implants placed in extraction sockets, and 3 trials evaluated techniques to treat fenestrated implants. CONCLUSIONS: Major bone grafting procedures of extremely resorbed mandibles may not be justified. Bone substitutes may replace autogenous bone for sinus lift procedures of extremely atrophic sinuses. Both guided bone regeneration procedures and distraction osteogenesis can be used to augment bone vertically, but it is unclear which is the most efficient. It is unclear whether augmentation procedures are needed at immediate single implants placed in fresh extraction sockets; however, sites treated with barrier + Bio-Oss showed a higher position of the gingival margin than sites treated with barriers alone. More bone was regenerated around fenestrated implants with nonresorbable barriers than without barriers; however, it remains unclear whether such bone is of benefit to the patient. Bone morphogenetic proteins may enhance bone formation around implants grafted with Bio-Oss, but there was no reliable evidence supporting the efficacy of other active agents, such as platelet-rich plasma, in conjunction with implant treatment.
Authors: Marouene Ben Hadj Hassine; Paolo Bucci; Roberta Gasparro; Alessandro Espedito Di Lauro; Gilberto Sammartino Journal: Ann Stomatol (Roma) Date: 2015-02-09
Authors: Hatice Hasturk; Alpdogan Kantarci; Mazen Ghattas; Marcella Schmidt; Russell A Giordano; Arthur Ashman; Thomas G Diekwisch; Thomas Van Dyke Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 6.993
Authors: Marco Esposito; Maria Gabriella Grusovin; Pietro Felice; Georgios Karatzopoulos; Helen V Worthington; Paul Coulthard Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-10-07
Authors: J Ortega-Martínez; T Pérez-Pascual; S Mareque-Bueno; F Hernández-Alfaro; E Ferrés-Padró Journal: Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal Date: 2012-03-01
Authors: Christoph Reichert; Bilal Al-Nawas; Ralf Smeets; Adrian Kasaj; Werner Götz; Marcus O Klein Journal: Head Face Med Date: 2009-11-12 Impact factor: 2.151