Literature DB >> 23189300

Localized bone augmentation with cortical bone blocks tented over different particulate bone substitutes: a retrospective study.

Arash Khojasteh1, Hossein Behnia, Yadollah Soleymani Shayesteh, Golnaz Morad, Marzieh Alikhasi.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of a block tenting technique for reconstruction of vertical or horizontal alveolar ridge defects.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent a block tenting graft technique between 2005 and 2010 were analyzed retrospectively. Intraoral bone blocks (ramus, chin, or tuberosity) or allogeneic blocks were fixed at 4 mm from the deficient area, and the gap was filled with bone substitutes, with or without plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF). Implants were placed simultaneously or 4 to 5 months postgrafting. Patient demographic information, amount of width/height augmentation after 4 to 5 months of healing, complications, and contributing factors were gathered and analyzed.
RESULTS: One hundred two patients were enrolled. Among the horizontal augmentations, the greatest width increase was achieved in the anterior maxilla (4.31±0.93 mm). The average height increase in the vertically augmented regions was greatest in the posterior maxilla (5.75±2.22 mm). Mean horizontal augmentation was the greatest with ramus (3.65±0.65 mm) and allogeneic materials (3.97±0.79 mm). The greatest vertical gain was achieved with tuberosity blocks (4.25±3.06 mm) and a combination of allogeneic/autogenous bone particles (3.90±1.05 mm). Application of PRGF showed no appreciable effect. The most common primary complications of surgery were hematoma and inflammation. The most common complication in the anterior maxilla was hematoma. Inflammation was the most common complication associated with ramus grafts, while hematoma occurred most often in cases with chin and tuberosity grafts. Total graft failure occurred in 13 patients, mainly associated with the allogeneic blocks. Most patients were followed for 11 to 38 months. Five of 237 inserted implants failed to osseointegrate.
CONCLUSION: The block tenting technique might be effective for localized ridge augmentation and may reduce the amount of autograft required from donor sites.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23189300

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants        ISSN: 0882-2786            Impact factor:   2.804


  10 in total

Review 1.  Application of selected scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: a systematic review.

Authors:  Sepanta Hosseinpour; Mitra Ghazizadeh Ahsaie; Maryam Rezai Rad; Mohammad Taghi Baghani; Saeed Reza Motamedian; Arash Khojasteh
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2017-02-13

2.  Allogeneic materials in complications associated with pre-implantation restoration of maxillary and mandibular alveolar processes. A four case report.

Authors:  Marta Krasny; Kornel Krasny; Artur Kamiński; Piotr Fiedor
Journal:  Cell Tissue Bank       Date:  2013-09-27       Impact factor: 1.522

3.  Comparison of Bone Resorption Rates after Intraoral Block Bone and Guided Bone Regeneration Augmentation for the Reconstruction of Horizontally Deficient Maxillary Alveolar Ridges.

Authors:  B Alper Gultekin; Elcin Bedeloglu; T Emre Kose; Eitan Mijiritsky
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-10-26       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 4.  Guided Bone Regeneration for the Reconstruction of Alveolar Bone Defects.

Authors:  Arash Khojasteh; Lida Kheiri; Saeed Reza Motamedian; Vahid Khoshkam
Journal:  Ann Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2017 Jul-Dec

5.  Bone Regeneration of a 3D-Printed Alloplastic and Particulate Xenogenic Graft with rhBMP-2.

Authors:  Ji-In Ryu; Byoung-Eun Yang; Sang-Min Yi; Hyo Geun Choi; Sung-Woon On; Seok Jin Hong; Ho-Kyung Lim; Soo-Hwan Byun
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-11-20       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 6.  Long-term effects of vertical bone augmentation: a systematic review.

Authors:  Johan Anton Jochum Keestra; Obada Barry; Lianne de Jong; Gerhard Wahl
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.698

7.  Evaluation of the autogenous bone block transfer for dental implant placement: Symphysal or ramus harvesting?

Authors:  Selim Ersanli; Volkan Arısan; Elçin Bedeloğlu
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2016-01-26       Impact factor: 2.757

Review 8.  Success rate of implants placed in autogenous bone blocks versus allogenic bone blocks: A systematic literature review.

Authors:  Saeed Reza Motamedian; Moein Khojaste; Arash Khojasteh
Journal:  Ann Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2016 Jan-Jun

Review 9.  Alternative intraoral donor sites to the chin and mandibular body-ramus.

Authors:  David Reininger; Carlos Cobo-Vázquez; Benjamin Rosenberg; Juan López-Quiles
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2017-12-01

10.  Lateral Ramus Cortical Bone Plate in Alveolar Cleft Osteoplasty with Concomitant Use of Buccal Fat Pad Derived Cells and Autogenous Bone: Phase I Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Arash Khojasteh; Lida Kheiri; Hossein Behnia; Azita Tehranchi; Pantea Nazeman; Nasser Nadjmi; Masoud Soleimani
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 3.411

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.