Gerry M Raghoebar1, Leo Meijndert, Wouter W I Kalk, Arjan Vissink. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands. g.m.raghoebar@kchir.umcg.nl
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the objective and subjective morbidity of mandibular bone harvesting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients who had been subjected to mandibular bone harvesting from the chin region (group 1, n = 15), the retromolar region (group 2, n = 15), or the retromolar region after removal of the third molar (group 3, n = 15) participated in this study. Complications, postoperative morbidity, and patient acceptance of the procedure were evaluated by assessing the medical records and performing standardized routine clinical and radiographic examinations up to 12 months after the augmentation procedure. In addition, the patients were asked to complete a questionnaire on the subjective complaints related to the procedure. RESULTS: Analysis of the questionnaire revealed that there was no significant difference between patients of groups 1 and 2 regarding acceptance of the procedure (scores of 8.6 +/- 1.1 and 8.5 +/- 0.9 on a 10-point scale, respectively). Acceptance of the procedure was scored significantly higher by the patients of group 3 (9.3 +/- 0.7; Student t test, P < .05). Six patients of group 1 and 2 patients of groups 2 and 3 reported subjective sensory disturbances related to the donor site. With the exception of 2 patients in group 1, these subjective complaints disappeared within 2 months after surgery. In the 2 patients (group 1) who reported a persistent discrete sensibility disorder in the symphyseal region after 12 months, this disturbance could not be confirmed objectively. CONCLUSION: Mandibular bone harvesting for reconstructing local alveolar defects is a well-accepted procedure with low objective and subjective morbidity. Amongst the procedures evaluated, harvesting bone from the retromolar region combined with removal of the third molar was best accepted by the patients.
PURPOSE: To assess the objective and subjective morbidity of mandibular bone harvesting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients who had been subjected to mandibular bone harvesting from the chin region (group 1, n = 15), the retromolar region (group 2, n = 15), or the retromolar region after removal of the third molar (group 3, n = 15) participated in this study. Complications, postoperative morbidity, and patient acceptance of the procedure were evaluated by assessing the medical records and performing standardized routine clinical and radiographic examinations up to 12 months after the augmentation procedure. In addition, the patients were asked to complete a questionnaire on the subjective complaints related to the procedure. RESULTS: Analysis of the questionnaire revealed that there was no significant difference between patients of groups 1 and 2 regarding acceptance of the procedure (scores of 8.6 +/- 1.1 and 8.5 +/- 0.9 on a 10-point scale, respectively). Acceptance of the procedure was scored significantly higher by the patients of group 3 (9.3 +/- 0.7; Student t test, P < .05). Six patients of group 1 and 2 patients of groups 2 and 3 reported subjective sensory disturbances related to the donor site. With the exception of 2 patients in group 1, these subjective complaints disappeared within 2 months after surgery. In the 2 patients (group 1) who reported a persistent discrete sensibility disorder in the symphyseal region after 12 months, this disturbance could not be confirmed objectively. CONCLUSION: Mandibular bone harvesting for reconstructing local alveolar defects is a well-accepted procedure with low objective and subjective morbidity. Amongst the procedures evaluated, harvesting bone from the retromolar region combined with removal of the third molar was best accepted by the patients.
Authors: Emanuele Clozza; Marcel Obrecht; Michel Dard; Paulo G Coelho; Christer Dahlin; Steven P Engebretson Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2013-08-10 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: F Camacho-Alonso; C Martínez-Ortiz; L Plazas-Buendía; A M Mercado-Díaz; C Vilaplana-Vivo; J A Navarro; A J Buendía; J J Merino; Y Martínez-Beneyto Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2020-01-11 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Stefan P Bienz; Michael Payer; Jenni Hjerppe; Jürg Hüsler; Norbert Jakse; Patrick R Schmidlin; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Ronald E Jung; Daniel S Thoma Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 5.021
Authors: D Joshua Cohen; Kayla M Scott; Aniket N Kulkarni; Jennifer S Wayne; Barbara D Boyan; Zvi Schwartz Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Daniel de Oliveira Martins; Fabio Martinez dos Santos; Mara Evany de Oliveira; Luiz R G de Britto; José Benedito Dias Lemos; Marucia Chacur Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Fereydoon Sargolzaei Aval; Mohammad R Arab; Narjes Sargolzaei; Sanam Barfrushan; Mohsen Mir; Gholam H Sargazi; Forough Sargolzaeiaval; Maryam Arab Journal: Arch Bone Jt Surg Date: 2019-03