Frank Schwarz1,2, Didem Hazar2, Kathrin Becker2,3, Robert Sader4, Jürgen Becker2. 1. Department of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Carolinum, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany. 2. Department of Oral Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. 3. Department of Orthodontics, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. 4. Department for Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, Medical Center of the Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the efficacy and safety of autogenous tooth roots (TR) and autogenous bone blocks (AB) for lateral alveolar ridge augmentation and two-stage implant placement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 30 patients in need of implant therapy and lateral ridge augmentation were allocated to parallel groups receiving either (a) healthy autogenous tooth roots (e.g. retained wisdom or impacted teeth) (n = 15) or (b) cortical autogenous bone blocks harvested from the retromolar area. After 26 weeks of submerged healing, the primary endpoint was defined as the crestal ridge width (mm) (CW26) being sufficient to place an adequately dimensioned titanium implant at the respective sites. RESULTS:Soft tissue healing was uneventful in both groups. CW26 at V isit 6 allowed for a successful implant placement in all patients of both TR (15/15) and AB groups (15/15). Mean CW26 values amounted to 10.06 ± 1.85 mm (median: 11.0) in the TR and 9.20 ± 2.09 mm (median: 8.50) in the AB group, respectively. The difference between both groups did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.241). CONCLUSIONS: TR may serve as an alternative graft to support lateral alveolar ridge augmentation and two-stage implant placement.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the efficacy and safety of autogenous tooth roots (TR) and autogenous bone blocks (AB) for lateral alveolar ridge augmentation and two-stage implant placement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 30 patients in need of implant therapy and lateral ridge augmentation were allocated to parallel groups receiving either (a) healthy autogenous tooth roots (e.g. retained wisdom or impacted teeth) (n = 15) or (b) cortical autogenous bone blocks harvested from the retromolar area. After 26 weeks of submerged healing, the primary endpoint was defined as the crestal ridge width (mm) (CW26) being sufficient to place an adequately dimensioned titanium implant at the respective sites. RESULTS: Soft tissue healing was uneventful in both groups. CW26 at V isit 6 allowed for a successful implant placement in all patients of both TR (15/15) and AB groups (15/15). Mean CW26 values amounted to 10.06 ± 1.85 mm (median: 11.0) in the TR and 9.20 ± 2.09 mm (median: 8.50) in the AB group, respectively. The difference between both groups did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.241). CONCLUSIONS: TR may serve as an alternative graft to support lateral alveolar ridge augmentation and two-stage implant placement.