Antonio Barone1, Paolo Toti2, Giovan-Battista Menchini-Fabris2, Pietro Felice3, Saverio Marchionni4, Ugo Covani2. 1. Unit of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Department of Surgery, University of Geneva, Rue Barthélémy-Menn 19, 1205, Genéve, Switzerland. Electronic address: barosurg@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgical, Medical, Molecular and Critical Area Pathology, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy; Tuscan Dental Institute, Fortis Dental Center, Via Padre Ignazio da Carrara 39, 55042, Forte dei Marmi, Italy. 3. Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Via San Vitale 59, Bologna, Italy. 4. Department of Surgical, Medical, Molecular and Critical Area Pathology, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate volumetric and clinical outcomes of atrophic posterior mandibles treated with inlay or onlay bone grafting techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In posterior mandibles, alveolar ridges were treated either with interpositional equine cancellous bone block (inlay group) or with onlay autogenous bone block (onlay group). Bone volumes at baseline and at 4 months after surgery were measured by computed tomography. RESULTS: A total of 20 subjects were enrolled in the present study: 10 in the inlay group and 10 in the onlay group. After surgery, atrophic posterior mandibles showed a mean vertical augmentation height of 6.0 mm in the inlay group and 7.4 mm in the onlay group. No significant differences were recorded between the two groups regarding volume loss of the grafted bone or decrease in vertical bone height of the augmented site (29% and 1.9 mm for the onlay group, and 35% and 1.7 mm for the inlay group) during healing. Two complications (1 wound dehiscence and 1 mandibular fracture) occurred postoperatively in the inlay group; on the other hand, the onlay group had three complications (wound dehiscence). A total of 80 dental implants were placed in augmented areas: 46 in the inlay group with a peri-implant marginal bone loss of 0.8 mm, and 34 in the onlay group with a peri-implant marginal bone loss of 1.3 mm (p = 0.0006). CONCLUSIONS: Inlay xenogeneic grafts showed volumetric bone remodeling similar to that recorded for onlay autogenous bone. The success of the autogenous onlay blocks (82.4%) appeared to be lower than that registered for the inlay group (93.8%), but the difference was not significant.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate volumetric and clinical outcomes of atrophic posterior mandibles treated with inlay or onlay bone grafting techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In posterior mandibles, alveolar ridges were treated either with interpositional equinecancellous bone block (inlay group) or with onlay autogenous bone block (onlay group). Bone volumes at baseline and at 4 months after surgery were measured by computed tomography. RESULTS: A total of 20 subjects were enrolled in the present study: 10 in the inlay group and 10 in the onlay group. After surgery, atrophic posterior mandibles showed a mean vertical augmentation height of 6.0 mm in the inlay group and 7.4 mm in the onlay group. No significant differences were recorded between the two groups regarding volume loss of the grafted bone or decrease in vertical bone height of the augmented site (29% and 1.9 mm for the onlay group, and 35% and 1.7 mm for the inlay group) during healing. Two complications (1 wound dehiscence and 1 mandibular fracture) occurred postoperatively in the inlay group; on the other hand, the onlay group had three complications (wound dehiscence). A total of 80 dental implants were placed in augmented areas: 46 in the inlay group with a peri-implant marginal bone loss of 0.8 mm, and 34 in the onlay group with a peri-implant marginal bone loss of 1.3 mm (p = 0.0006). CONCLUSIONS: Inlay xenogeneic grafts showed volumetric bone remodeling similar to that recorded for onlay autogenous bone. The success of the autogenous onlay blocks (82.4%) appeared to be lower than that registered for the inlay group (93.8%), but the difference was not significant.
Authors: Priscila N Uehara; Victor Haruo Matsubara; Fernando Igai; Newton Sesma; Marcio K Mukai; Mauricio G Araujo Journal: Open Dent J Date: 2018-04-30
Authors: R Lo Giudice; G Rizzo; A Centofanti; A Favaloro; D Rizzo; G Cervino; R Squeri; B G Costa; V La Fauci; G Lo Giudice Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 3.411