Esthetic outcome of implant-based reconstructions in augmented bone: comparison of autologous and allogeneic bone block grafting with the pink esthetic score (PES)

Markus Schlee, Jan-Friedrich Dehner, Katja Baukloh, Arndt Happe, Oliver Seitz, Robert Sader, Markus Schlee, Jan-Friedrich Dehner, Katja Baukloh, Arndt Happe, Oliver Seitz, Robert Sader

Abstract

Introduction: To determine the esthetic outcome of implant-based reconstructions after autologous and allogeneic bone grafting.

Methods: From 2003 to 2009, 67 patients underwent alveolar ridge augmentation and were enrolled in the study, 41 meet the inclusion criteria and 31 agreed to take part in the study. Patients were 18-69 years old (mean: 49.3 ± 13.8 years), and predominantly female. Patients received bone block grafts either autologous (n = 48) (AUBB) or allografts (ABB) (n = 19). Implants were inserted 4-7 months (autografts) or 5-6 months (allografts) after bone grafting. The Pink Esthetic Score (PES) as well as radiographic and subjective assessments were employed for the outcome analysis. The PES was assessed twice within one month based on digital photographic images that were randomly rearranged between evaluations by three independent, experienced investigators.

Results: Across all observations and investigators, the average PES was 7.5 ± 2.6 without differences between implants inserted in auto- and allografted bone, respectively. Patients assessed the allograft procedures as less painful and would have repeated it more often. The intra-rater reliability was excellent (correlation coefficients 0.7-0.9). The inter-observer agreement was lower (correlation coefficients 0.6-0.8).

Conclusions: Bone grafting with ABB allografts yields equivalent results to autologous grafting, and patients appreciate the omission of bone harvesting. The PES is a reliable method but should be performed by the same individual.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Well integrated autograft harvested from the ramus area. Bone blocks from linea obliqua externa are consisting mainly of cancellous bone. Even after 6 months the block seems to be integrated very nicely but still has a white color indicating incomplete turn over in living bone.
Figure 2
Figure 2
ABB reduce surgery time and trauma. At baseline the allograft made of spongous bone derived from femur heads of living donators is adapted to the recipient site and fixed by screws.
Figure 3
Figure 3
ABB integrated nicely after 6 months. Clinically the ABB seems to be integrated more nicely than the autograft. It is bleeding and the former spongous structure changed and a closed surface is visible.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Pink esthetic score depending on the time of assessment and grafting method. Three due to the augmentation method blinded investigators performed the PES assessment. After one month, the investigators reassessed all images that had been rearranged in a different random order. There was no appreciable difference between the first and second assessment in either group.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Pink esthetic score depending on the investigator and grafting method. The intra-rater reliability between the three investigators was excellent.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Correlation between patient age and PES (p < 0.05). Age had significant influence on the PES. The 95% confidence interval for patients in their 20s roughly reached from 8 to 11 points, while it was between 4 and 8 in patients in their 80s.

References

    1. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Felice P, Karatzopoulos G, Worthington HV, Coulthard P. The efficacy of horizontal and vertical bone augmentation procedures for dental implants - a Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2009;2:167–184.
    1. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Felice P, Karatzopoulos G, Worthington HV, Coulthard P. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;4:CD003607.
    1. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Rees J, Karasoulos D, Felice P, Alissa R, Worthington H, Coulthard P. Effectiveness of sinus lift procedures for dental implant rehabilitation: a Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2010;3:7–26.
    1. Jensen SS, Terheyden H. Bone augmentation procedures in localized defects in the alveolar ridge: clinical results with different bone grafts and bone-substitute materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(Suppl):218–236.
    1. Dario LJ, Aschaffenburg PH, English R Jr, Nager MC. Fixed implant rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla: clinical guidelines and case reports. Part II. Implant Dent. 2000;9:102–109.
    1. Misch CM. Maxillary autogenous bone grafting. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2011;23:229–238. v.
    1. Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ, Stellingsma K, Vissink A. Addressing the atrophied mandible: a proposal for a treatment approach involving endosseous implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26:607–617.
    1. Ashman A. Postextraction ridge preservation using a synthetic alloplast. Implant Dent. 2000;9:168–176.
    1. Att W, Bernhart J, Strub JR. Fixed rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla: possibilities and clinical outcome. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67:60–73.
    1. Levin BP. Horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation: the importance of space maintenance. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2011;32:12–16. 18-21; quiz 22, 34.
    1. Carrión JB, Barbosa IR. Single implant-supported restorations in the anterior maxilla. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2005;25:149–155.
    1. Linkevicius T, Apse P, Grybauskas S, Puisys A. The influence of soft tissue thickness on crestal bone changes around implants: a 1-year prospective controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24:712–719.
    1. Raigrodski AJ, Block MS. Clinical considerations for enhancing the success of implant-supported restorations in the aesthetic zone with delayed implant placement. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent. 2002;14:21–28. quiz 30.
    1. Hof M, Pommer B, Strbac GD, Sütö D, Watzek G, Zechner W. Esthetic evaluation of single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla following autologous bone augmentation. Clinical Oral Impl Res. 2011;24(Suppl A100):88–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02381.x. Epub 2011 Dec 8.
    1. Aghaloo TL, Moy PK. Which hard tissue augmentation techniques are the most successful in furnishing bony support for implant placement? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(Suppl):49–70.
    1. Cordaro L, Torsello F, Miuccio MT, di Torresanto VM, Eliopoulos D. Mandibular bone harvesting for alveolar reconstruction and implant placement: subjective and objective cross-sectional evaluation of donor and recipient site up to 4 years. Clinical Oral Impl Res. 2011;22:1320–1326.
    1. Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Zaniboni M. Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(Suppl):237–259.
    1. Raghoebar GM, Batenburg RH, Timmenga NM, Vissink A, Reintsema H. Morbidity and complications of bone grafting of the floor of the maxillary sinus for the placement of endosseous implants. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 1999;3(Suppl 1):S65–S69.
    1. Weibull L, Widmark G, Ivanoff CJ, Borg E, Rasmusson L. Morbidity after chin bone harvesting–a retrospective long-term follow-up study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009;11:149–157.
    1. Peleg M, Sawatari Y, Marx RN, Santoro J, Cohen J, Bejarano P, Malinin T. Use of corticocancellous allogeneic bone blocks for augmentation of alveolar bone defects. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25:153–162.
    1. Avila G, Neiva R, Misch CE, Galindo-Moreno P, Benavides E, Rudek I, Wang HL. Clinical and histologic outcomes after the use of a novel allograft for maxillary sinus augmentation: a case series. Implant Dent. 2010;19:330–341.
    1. Lyford RH, Mills MP, Knapp CI, Scheyer ET, Mellonig JT. Clinical evaluation of freeze-dried block allografts for alveolar ridge augmentation: a case series. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003;23:417–425.
    1. Waasdorp J, Reynolds MA. Allogeneic bone onlay grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25:525–531.
    1. Nkenke E, Stelzle F. Clinical outcomes of sinus floor augmentation for implant placement using autogenous bone or bone substitutes: a systematic review. Clinical Oral Impl Res. 2009;20(Suppl 4):124–133.
    1. Vermylen K, Collaert B, Lindén U, Björn AL, De Bruyn H. Patient satisfaction and quality of single-tooth restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14:119–124.
    1. Belser UC, Schmid B, Higginbottom F, Buser D. Outcome analysis of implant restorations located in the anterior maxilla: a review of the recent literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19(Suppl):30–42.
    1. Fürhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T, Haas R, Mailath G, Watzek G. Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns: the pink esthetic score. Clinical Oral Impl Res. 2005;16:639–644.
    1. Gehrke P, Lobert M, Dhom G. Reproducibility of the pink esthetic score–rating soft tissue esthetics around single-implant restorations with regard to dental observer specialization. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2008;20:375–384. discussion 385.
    1. Lai HC, Zhang ZY, Wang F, Zhuang LF, Liu X, Pu YP. Evaluation of soft-tissue alteration around implant-supported single-tooth restoration in the anterior maxilla: the pink esthetic score. Clinical Oral Impl Res. 2008;19:560–564.
    1. Luo Z, Zeng R, Chen Z. Single implants in the esthetic zone: analysis of recent peri-implant soft tissue alterations and patient satisfaction. A photographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26:578–586.
    1. Belser UC, Grütter L, Vailati F, Bornstein MM, Weber HP, Buser D. Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria: a cross-sectional, retrospective study in 45 patients with a 2- to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic scores. J Periodontol. 2009;80:140–151.
    1. Schmitt CM, Doering H, Schmidt T, Lutz R, Neukam FW, Schlegel KA. Histological results after maxillary sinus augmentation with Straumann(R) BoneCeramic, Bio-Oss(R), Puros(R), and autologous bone. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clinical Oral Impl Res. 2012;5:576–585.
    1. Froum SJ, Wallace SS, Elian N, Cho SC, Tarnow DP. Comparison of mineralized cancellous bone allograft (Puros) and anorganic bovine bone matrix (Bio-Oss) for sinus augmentation: histomorphometry at 26 to 32 weeks after grafting. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2006;26:543–551.
    1. Noumbissi SS, Lozada JL, Boyne PJ, Rohrer MD, Clem D, Kim JS, Prasad H. Clinical, histologic, and histomorphometric evaluation of mineralized solvent-dehydrated bone allograf (Puros) in human maxillary sinus grafts. J Oral Implantol. 2005;31:171–179.
    1. Minichetti JC, D'Amore JC, Hong AY, Cleveland DB. Human histologic analysis of mineralized bone allograft (Puros) placement before implant surgery. J Oral Implantol. 2004;30:74–82.
    1. Kim SG, Park JS, Lim SC. Placement of implant after bone graft using J block allograft. Implant Dent. 2010;19:21–28.
    1. Velich N, Németh Z, Tóth C, Szabó G. Long-term results with different bone substitutes used for sinus floor elevation. J Craniofac Surg. 2004;15:38–41.
    1. Minichetti JC, D'Amore JC, Hong AY. Three-year analysis of Tapered Screw-Vent implants placed into extraction sockets grafted with mineralized bone allograft. J Oral Implantol. 2005;31:283–293.
    1. Margonar R, dos Santos PL, Queiroz TP, Marcantonio E. Rehabilitation of atrophic maxilla using the combination of autogenous and allogeneic bone grafts followed by protocol-type prosthesis. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21:1894–1896.
    1. Raghoebar GM, Timmenga NM, Reintsema H, Stegenga B, Vissink A. Maxillary bone grafting for insertion of endosseous implants: results after 12-124 months. Clinical Oral Impl Res. 2001;12:279–286.
    1. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Kwan S, Worthington HV, Coulthard P. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;3:CD003607.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner