Literature DB >> 26126920

Bone Augmented With Allograft Onlays for Implant Placement Could Be Comparable With Native Bone.

Khadijeh Al-Abedalla1, Jesus Torres2, Arthur Rodriguez Gonzalez Cortes3, Xixi Wu4, Samer Abi Nader5, Nach Daniel6, Faleh Tamimi7.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Bone allograft onlays have great potential in alveolar bone augmentation. However, no comparable cohort study is available in the literature showing whether implants placed in bone augmented with allograft onlays would have a success rate comparable to those placed in native alveolar bone. The objective of the cohort study was to investigate whether the quality of bone augmented with allograft onlays was sufficient to place dental implants and achieve success rates comparable to those in un-grafted bone.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two cohort studies were performed in 46 and 369 patients, respectively. In the first study, the quality and quantity of bone augmented with allograft onlays (21 patients received 68 allograft onlays) were assessed and compared with those of native alveolar bone (25 patients) using histologic techniques. In the second study, the performance of implants placed in allograft-augmented bone (16 patients) was assessed and compared with implants placed in autograft-augmented bone (43 patients) and native alveolar bone (310 patients).
RESULTS: The first study showed no significant differences (P = .33) in bone volume between bone augmented with allograft onlay and native alveolar bone. The second study showed that the success rates of implants placed in native bone (95.8%), autograft-augmented bone (96.4%), and allograft-augmented bone (96.8%) were similar to one another.
CONCLUSION: The quantity and quality of allograft-augmented bone are similar to those of host native alveolar bone, and the success rate of implants placed in allograft onlays is comparable to those placed in autograft onlays or native alveolar bone.
Copyright © 2015 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26126920     DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2015.06.151

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 0278-2391            Impact factor:   1.895


  6 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Is extracellular matrix (ECM) a promising scaffold biomaterial for bone repair?

Authors:  Ranli Gu; Hao Liu; Yuan Zhu; Xuenan Liu; Siyi Wang; Yunsong Liu
Journal:  Histol Histopathol       Date:  2021-09-02       Impact factor: 2.303

Review 3.  Fibronectin in Fracture Healing: Biological Mechanisms and Regenerative Avenues.

Authors:  Jonathan Klavert; Bram C J van der Eerden
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2021-04-16

4.  Customized Allogeneic Bone Augmentation Improves Esthetic Outcome in Anteromaxillary Dental Implantation.

Authors:  Manfred Nilius; Minou Hélène Nilius; Charlotte Mueller; Bernhard Weiland; Dominik Haim; Anna Krahe; Guenter Lauer
Journal:  Case Rep Dent       Date:  2022-03-22

5.  Comparison of allogeneic and autogenous bone grafts for augmentation of alveolar ridge defects-A 12-month retrospective radiographic evaluation.

Authors:  Frank R Kloss; Vincent Offermanns; Anita Kloss-Brandstätter
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 5.977

Review 6.  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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.