Literature DB >> 24977250

Blocks of autogenous bone versus xenografts for the rehabilitation of atrophic jaws with dental implants: preliminary data from a pilot randomised controlled trial.

Roberto Pistilli, Pietro Felice, Maurizio Piatelli, Alessandro Nisii, Carlo Barausse, Marco Esposito.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of onlay bone blocks of equine origin (test or XB group) with autogenous bone blocks (control or AB group) harvested from the ramus or the iliac crest for the rehabilitation of partially or fully edentulous atrophic jaws with implant supported prostheses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with partially or fully edentulous atrophic jaws having less than 5 mm of residual crestal bone height and/or less than 3 mm of bone thickness, as measured on computerised tomography (CT) scans, were randomised into two groups according to a parallel group design, either to be augmented with autogenous onlay bone blocks (20 patients; AB group) from the mandibular ramus or the iliac crest, or with onlays blocks of spongious bone of equine origin (20 patients; XB group). Two centres treated 20 patients each. Six XB blocks were modelled on lithographic models of the jaws before grafting. The blocks were fixed with screws and osteosynthesis plates and were covered with resorbable barriers made of equine cortical bone and fixed with tacks. The autogenous bone grafts were left to heal for 4 months and the xenografts for 7 months before placing implants, which were submerged. After 4 months, either bar-retained overdentures or provisional reinforced acrylic prostheses were delivered. Provisional prostheses were replaced, after 4 months, by definitive fixed prostheses. Outcome measures were: prosthesis and implant failures; complications; patient satisfaction; pain recorded 3 and 10 days post-augmentation; number of days of hospitalisation, total and partial infirmity days. All patients were followed for 4 months after loading.
RESULTS: All patients could be rehabilitated with implant-supported prostheses and none dropped out. Twenty-eight patients were augmented in the maxilla (15 with AB and 13 with XB) and 12 in the mandible (5 with AB and 7 with XB). No AB graft failed totally versus 10 XB grafts (difference = 0.5; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.68; P = 0.0004). In particular, all 7 XB mandibular grafts and 5 out of 6 XB blocks (3 in mandibles and 2 in maxillas), which were previously modelled on lithographic models of the jaws failed. One implant failed in one AB patient versus 11 implants in 4 XB patients (P = 0.3416). All but 1 prostheses were loaded in time in the AB patients, versus 4 prostheses which were loaded with delays in XB patients because of graft and implant failures (P = 0.3416). Four complications occurred in 4 AB patients versus 15 complications in 12 XB patients (difference = 0.4; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.63; P = 0.0225). Fourteen AB patients reported moderate pain 3 days postoperatively versus 6 XB patients (P = 0.0562); at 10 days, 10 AB patients reported moderate pain versus 1 XB patient (difference = -0.45; 95% CI -0.65 to -0.17; P = 0.0033). The 14 patients harvested from the iliac crest were hospitalised for an average of 3.1 nights, whereas 7 patients treated with XB were hospitalised on average for 1.4 nights (P <0.0001). The number of total and partial infirmity days was 126 for theAB group and 43 for the XB group, and 220 for the AB group and 93 for the XB group, respectively (mean day difference = -4.15; 95% CI -7.35 to -0.95; P = 0.0134 and mean day difference = -5.7; 95% CI -10.01 to -1.39; P = 0.0116, respectively). Seventeen AB patients versus 19 XB patients were fully satisfied with function of their prostheses (P = 0.6050), 18 AB patients versus 12 XB patients were fully satisfied with aesthetics of their prostheses (P = 0.0648), and 5 and 3 patients, respectively would not undergo the same procedure again (P = 0.6948). There were no differences between the outcomes of the two centres with exception of prosthesis failures and complications in the maxilla.
CONCLUSIONS: Autogenous onlay bone blocks are superior to equine onlay bone blocks, especially in mandibles, where all equine blocks failed, therefore we strongly discourage the use of onlay bone blocks of equine origin in mandibles.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24977250

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Oral Implantol        ISSN: 1756-2406            Impact factor:   3.123


  11 in total

1.  Comparison of the 3D-Microstructure Between Alveolar and Iliac Bone for Enhanced Bioinspired Bone Graft Substitutes.

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

2.  Acellular mineralized allogenic block bone graft does not remodel during the 10 weeks following concurrent implant placement in a rabbit femoral model.

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

3.  Assessment of reporting quality in randomised controlled clinical trial abstracts of dental implantology published from 2014 to 2016.

Authors:  Stephanie Knippschild; Jeremias Loddenkemper; Sabrina Tulka; Christine Loddenkemper; Christine Baulig
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-08-13       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Stability of simultaneously placed dental implants with autologous bone grafts harvested from the iliac crest or intraoral jaw bone.

Authors:  Young-Hoon Kang; Hyun-Min Kim; June-Ho Byun; Uk-Kyu Kim; Iel-Yong Sung; Yeong-Cheol Cho; Bong-Wook Park
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 2.757

5.  Clinical results of autologous bone augmentation harvested from the mandibular ramus prior to implant placement. An analysis of 104 cases.

Authors:  Andreas Sakkas; Konstantinidis Ioannis; Karsten Winter; Alexander Schramm; Frank Wilde
Journal:  GMS Interdiscip Plast Reconstr Surg DGPW       Date:  2016-10-06

6.  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

7.  Histomorphometric and immunohistochemical evaluation of collagen containing xenogeneic bone blocks used for lateral bone augmentation in staged implant placement.

Authors:  Alberto Ortiz-Vigón; Sergio Martinez-Villa; Iñaki Suarez; Fabio Vignoletti; Mariano Sanz
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2017-06-21

8.  Blood absorption capacity of different xenograft bone substitutes. An in-vitro study.

Authors:  Octavi Ortiz-Puigpelat; Andreia Simões; Jordi Caballé-Serrano; Federico Hernández-Alfaro
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2019-11-01

9.  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 10.  Survival Rates of Dental Implants in Autogenous and Allogeneic Bone Blocks: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Phil Donkiewicz; Korbinian Benz; Anita Kloss-Brandstätter; Jochen Jackowski
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 2.430

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.