OBJECTIVES: To compare autogenous bone (AT) and fresh-frozen allogeneic bone (AL) in terms of histomorphometrical graft incorporation and implant osseointegration after grafting for lateral ridge augmentation in humans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients were treated with either AL (20 patients) or AT (14 patients) onlay grafts. During implant installation surgery 6 months after grafting, cylindrical biopsies were harvested perpendicularly to the lateral aspect of the augmented alveolar ridge. Additionally, titanium mini-implants were installed in the grafted regions, also perpendicularly to the ridge; these were biopsied during second-stage surgery. Histological/histomorphometric analysis was performed using decalcified and non-decalcified sections. RESULTS: Histological analysis revealed areas of necrotic bone (NcB) occasionally in contact with or completely engulfed by newly formed vital bone (VB) in both AT and AL groups (55.9 ± 27.6 vs. 43.1 ± 20.3, respectively; P = 0.19). Statistically significant larger amounts of VB (27.6 ± 17.5 vs. 8.4 ± 4.9, respectively; P = 0.0002) and less soft connective tissue (ST) (16.4 ± 15.6 vs. 48.4 ± 18.1, respectively; P ≤ 0.0001) were seen for AT compared with AL. No significant differences were observed between the groups regarding both bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and the bone area between implant threads (BA) on the mini-implant biopsies. CONCLUSION: Allogeneic bone block grafts may be an option in cases where a limited amount of augmentation is needed, and the future implant can be expected confined within the inner aspect of the bone block. However, the clinical impact of the relatively poor graft incorporation on the long-term performance of oral implants placed in AL grafts remains obscure.
OBJECTIVES: To compare autogenous bone (AT) and fresh-frozen allogeneic bone (AL) in terms of histomorphometrical graft incorporation and implant osseointegration after grafting for lateral ridge augmentation in humans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients were treated with either AL (20 patients) or AT (14 patients) onlay grafts. During implant installation surgery 6 months after grafting, cylindrical biopsies were harvested perpendicularly to the lateral aspect of the augmented alveolar ridge. Additionally, titanium mini-implants were installed in the grafted regions, also perpendicularly to the ridge; these were biopsied during second-stage surgery. Histological/histomorphometric analysis was performed using decalcified and non-decalcified sections. RESULTS: Histological analysis revealed areas of necrotic bone (NcB) occasionally in contact with or completely engulfed by newly formed vital bone (VB) in both AT and AL groups (55.9 ± 27.6 vs. 43.1 ± 20.3, respectively; P = 0.19). Statistically significant larger amounts of VB (27.6 ± 17.5 vs. 8.4 ± 4.9, respectively; P = 0.0002) and less soft connective tissue (ST) (16.4 ± 15.6 vs. 48.4 ± 18.1, respectively; P ≤ 0.0001) were seen for AT compared with AL. No significant differences were observed between the groups regarding both bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and the bone area between implant threads (BA) on the mini-implant biopsies. CONCLUSION: Allogeneic bone block grafts may be an option in cases where a limited amount of augmentation is needed, and the future implant can be expected confined within the inner aspect of the bone block. However, the clinical impact of the relatively poor graft incorporation on the long-term performance of oral implants placed in AL grafts remains obscure.
Authors: Rene Rothweiler; Christian Gross; Emely Bortel; Sarah Früh; Javier Gerber; Elodie Boller; Jonas Wüster; Andres Stricker; Tobias Fretwurst; Gerhard Iglhaut; Susanne Nahles; Rainer Schmelzeisen; Bernhard Hesse; Katja Nelson Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol Date: 2022-06-17
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: Do-Gyoon Kim; Kathy L Elias; Yong-Hoon Jeong; Hyun-Jung Kwon; Matthew Clements; William A Brantley; Damian J Lee; Jung-Suk Han Journal: J Mech Behav Biomed Mater Date: 2016-01-02
Authors: Eugénio Pereira; Ana Messias; Ricardo Dias; Fernando Judas; Alexander Salvoni; Fernando Guerra Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2014-10-27 Impact factor: 3.932
Authors: Livingstom Rubens Sousa Rocha; Antonio Carlos Aloise; Rafael de Mello Oliveira; Marcelo Lucchesi Teixeira; André Antonio Pelegrine; Luís Guilherme Scavone Macedo Journal: Contemp Clin Dent Date: 2017 Apr-Jun
Authors: James Carlos Nery; Luís Antônio Violin Dias Pereira; George Furtado Guimarães; Cassio Rocha Scardueli; Fabiana Mantovani Gomes França; Rubens Spin-Neto; Andreas Stavropoulos Journal: Int J Implant Dent Date: 2017-05-04