Bone grafts utilized in dentistry: an analysis of patients' preferences

Ramón Fuentes Fernández, Cristina Bucchi, Pablo Navarro, Víctor Beltrán, Eduardo Borie, Ramón Fuentes Fernández, Cristina Bucchi, Pablo Navarro, Víctor Beltrán, Eduardo Borie

Abstract

Background: Many procedures currently require the use of bone grafts to replace or recover bone volume that has been resorbed. However, the patient's opinion and preferences must be taken into account before implementing any treatment. Researchers have focused primarily on assessing the effectiveness of bone grafts rather than on patients' perceptions. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore patients' opinions regarding the different types of bone grafts used in dental treatments.

Methods: One hundred patients were randomly chosen participated in the study. A standardized survey of 10 questions was used to investigate their opinions regarding the different types of bone grafts used in dental treatments. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the different variables, and absolute frequencies and percentages were used as summary measures. A value of p <0.05 was selected as the threshold for statistical significance.

Results: The highest rate of refusal was observed for allografts and xenografts. The grafts with the lowest rates of refusal were autologous grafts (3 %) and alloplastics (2 %). No significant differences were found between the various types of bone grafts in the sociodemographic variables or the refusal/acceptance variable. Similarly, no significant relations were observed between a specific religious affiliation and the acceptance/refusal rates of the various types of graft.

Conclusions: Allografts and xenografts elicited the highest refusal rates among the surveyed patients, and autologous bone and alloplastics were the most accepted bone grafts. Moreover, no differences were found in the sociodemographic variables or religious affiliations in terms of the acceptance/refusal rates of the different bone grafts.

References

    1. Manrique N, Pereira CC, Garcia LM, Micaroni S, Carvalho AA, Perri SH, et al. Alveolar bone healing process in spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR). A radiographic densitometry study. J Appl Oral Sci. 2012;20:222–227. doi: 10.1590/S1678-77572012000200017.
    1. Rana R, Ramachandra SS, Lahori M, Singhal R, Jithendra KD. Combined soft and hard tissue augmentation for a localized alveolar ridge defect. Contemp Clin Dent. 2013;4:556–558. doi: 10.4103/0976-237X.123090.
    1. Atwood DA. A cephalometric study of the clinical rest position of the mandible. Part II. The variability in the rate of bone loss following the removal of occlusal contacts. J Prosthet Dent. 1957;7:544–552. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(57)90062-8.
    1. Oporto VG, Fuentes FR, Álvarez CH, Borie E. Maxillomandibular morphology and physiology recovery: Biomaterials in bone regeneration. Int J Morphol. 2008;26:853–859.
    1. Enoch S, Shaaban H, Dunn KW. Informed consent should be obtained from patients to use products (skin substitutes) and dressings containing biological material. J Med Ethics. 2005;31:2–6. doi: 10.1136/jme.2003.005272.
    1. Op den Dries S, Annema C, van den Berg AP, Ranchor AV, Porte RJ: Shared Decision Making in Transplantation: How Patients See Their Role in The Decision Process of Accepting a Donor Liver. Liver Transpl 2014. DOI: 10.1002/lt.23921.
    1. Kasten P, Vogel J, Geiger F, Niemeyer P, Luginbühl R, Szalay K. The effect of platelet-rich plasma on healing in critical-size long-bone defects. Biomaterials. 2008;29:3983–3992. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.06.014.
    1. Huang MS, Wu HD, Teng NC, Peng BY, Wu JY, Chang WJ, et al. In vivo evaluation of poorly crystalline hydroxyapatite-based biphasic calcium phosphate bone substitutes for treating dental bony defects. J Dent Sci. 2010;5:100–108. doi: 10.1016/S1991-7902(10)60014-1.
    1. Olate S, de Oliveira GR, Jaimes M, Barbosa JRA. Osseous recovery in implant insertion and pre implant reconstructions. Int J Morphol. 2007;25:649–657. doi: 10.4067/S0717-95022007000300030.
    1. Grover V, Kapoor A, Malhotra R, Sachdeva S. Bone allografts: a review of safety and efficacy. Indian J Dent Res. 2011;22:496. doi: 10.4103/0970-9290.87084.
    1. Grageda E. Platelet-Rich Plasma and Bone Graft Materials: A Review and a Standardized Research Protocol. Implant Dent. 2004;13:301–309.
    1. Dion-Labrie M, Fortin MC, Hébert MJ, Doucet H. The use of personalized medicine for patient selection for renal transplantation: physicians' views on the clinical and ethical implications. BMC Med Ethics. 2010;11:5. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-11-5.
    1. Ochieng J, Ibingira C, Buwembo W, Munabi I, Kiryowa H, Kitara D, Bukuluki P, Nzarubara G, Mwaka E: Informed consent practices for surgical care at university teaching hospitals: a case in a low resource setting. BMC Med Ethics, 2014. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-40.
    1. Eriksson A, Burcharth J, Rosenberg J. Animal derived products may conflict with religious patients' beliefs. BMC Med Ethics. 2013;14:48. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-14-48.
    1. Robertson A, Nutton RW, Keating JF. Current trends in the use of tendon allografts in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:988–992. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B8.17555.
    1. Oryan A, Alidadi S, Moshiri A. Current concerns regarding healing of bone defects. Hard Tissue. 2013;2:13.
    1. Hof M, Tepper G, Semo B, Arnhart C, Watzek G, Pommer B. Patients' perspectives on dental implant and bone graft surgery: questionnaire-based interview survey. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25:42–45. doi: 10.1111/clr.12061.
    1. Oryan A, Alidadi S, Moshiri A, Maffulli N. Bone regenerative medicine: classic options, novel strategies, and future directions. J Orthop Surg Res. 2014;9:18. doi: 10.1186/1749-799X-9-18.
    1. Norman-Taylor FH, Santori N, Villar RN. The trouble with bone allograft. BMJ. 1997;315:498. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7107.498.
    1. Nelson JL. Moral sensibilities and moral standing: Caplan on xenograft donors. Bioethics. 1993;7:315–322. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.1993.tb00221.x.
    1. McCarthy C. Ethical Aspects of Animal-to-Human Xenografts. ILAR J. 1995;37:3–9. doi: 10.1093/ilar.37.1.3.
    1. Nkenke E, Neukam FW. Autogenous bone harvesting and grafting in advanced jaw resorption: Morbidity, resorption and implant survival. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014;19:203–217.
    1. Banwart JC, Asher MA, Hassanein RS. Iliac Crest Bone Graft Harvest Donor Site Morbidity. A Statistical Evaluation. Spine. 1995;20:1055–1060. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199505000-00012.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe