Eduardo Anitua1, Mohammad H Alkhraisat2. 1. Department Head, Eduardo Anitua Foundation; Scientific Director, BTI Biotechnology Institute; Private Practice in Oral Implantology, Vitoria, Spain. Electronic address: eduardoanitua@eduardoanitua.com. 2. Clinician Researcher, Eduardo Anitua Foundation; Scientist, BTI Biotechnology Institute, Vitoria, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is a paucity of studies that have assessed the long-term outcomes of the alveolar ridge split (ARS). This study evaluated the intraoperative and postoperative complications and assessed the placed dental implant and prosthesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of the ARS was conducted in a single private dental clinic. The predictor variable was the ARS technique (1 stage vs 2 stages). The primary outcome was the dental implant survival rate. Secondary outcomes were intraoperative complications, marginal bone loss, prosthetic complications, and prosthesis success rate. Descriptive analysis was performed for patients' demographic data, implant details, and prosthetic complications. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to assess implant survival rate and prosthesis success rate. RESULTS: Twenty patients (mean age, 55 ± 6 yr) had a mean follow-up time of 5 years. Delayed implant placement was performed when the residual alveolar bone width was narrower than 3 mm. No intraoperative or postoperative complications were reported. The survival rate of the 31 implants was 100% and the prosthesis success rate was 96.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The ARS is an effective technique for horizontal bone augmentation in the mandible. Delayed dental implant placement when the alveolar bone width is narrower than 3 mm could minimize the risk of buccal wall fracture.
PURPOSE: There is a paucity of studies that have assessed the long-term outcomes of the alveolar ridge split (ARS). This study evaluated the intraoperative and postoperative complications and assessed the placed dental implant and prosthesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of the ARS was conducted in a single private dental clinic. The predictor variable was the ARS technique (1 stage vs 2 stages). The primary outcome was the dental implant survival rate. Secondary outcomes were intraoperative complications, marginal bone loss, prosthetic complications, and prosthesis success rate. Descriptive analysis was performed for patients' demographic data, implant details, and prosthetic complications. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to assess implant survival rate and prosthesis success rate. RESULTS: Twenty patients (mean age, 55 ± 6 yr) had a mean follow-up time of 5 years. Delayed implant placement was performed when the residual alveolar bone width was narrower than 3 mm. No intraoperative or postoperative complications were reported. The survival rate of the 31 implants was 100% and the prosthesis success rate was 96.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The ARS is an effective technique for horizontal bone augmentation in the mandible. Delayed dental implant placement when the alveolar bone width is narrower than 3 mm could minimize the risk of buccal wall fracture.