Correlation between density and resorption of fresh-frozen and autogenous bone grafts

Simone Lumetti, Carlo Galli, Edoardo Manfredi, Ugo Consolo, Claudio Marchetti, Giulia Ghiacci, Andrea Toffoli, Mauro Bonanini, Attilio Salgarelli, Guido M Macaluso, Simone Lumetti, Carlo Galli, Edoardo Manfredi, Ugo Consolo, Claudio Marchetti, Giulia Ghiacci, Andrea Toffoli, Mauro Bonanini, Attilio Salgarelli, Guido M Macaluso

Abstract

Trial design: This analysis compared the outcome of fresh-frozen versus autologous bone block grafts for horizontal ridge augmentation in patients with Cawood and Howell class IV atrophies.

Methods: Seventeen patients received autologous grafts and 21 patients received fresh-frozen bone grafts. Patients underwent CT scans 1 week and 6 months after surgery for graft volume and density analysis.

Results: Two autologous and 3 fresh-frozen grafts failed. Autologous and fresh-frozen grafts lost, respectively, 28% and 46% of their initial volume (P = 0.028). It is noteworthy that less dense fresh-frozen blocks lost more volume than denser grafts (61% versus 16%).

Conclusions: According to these 6-month results, only denser fresh-frozen bone graft may be an acceptable alternative to autologous bone for horizontal ridge augmentation. Further studies are needed to investigate its behaviour at longer time points.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) Atrophic ridge before grafting; (b) homologous bone graft in place and (c) after 6 months of healing during surgery for implant placement. CT scans were taken before the intervention (d), 1 week after surgery (e), and after six months of healing (f).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Graft depicting change in volume of AB and FFB grafts based on CT data after 6 months. The volume of grafts in both groups decreased over time, though to a greater extent for FFB grafts, *P = 0.028.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Graft density as determined 1 week after insertion at CT (a) and graft density change after 6 months of healing (b). Density of AB grafts was significantly higher than FFB grafts, *P = 0.099.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Correlation between graft density and volume change over 6 months for AB (a) and FFB (b) grafts. No correlation was found for AB, but a linear relation between these parameters existed for FFB (r2 = 0.61, P = 0.0001).

References

    1. Nkenke E, Schultze-Mosgau S, Radespiel-Tiöger M, Kloss F, Neukam FW. Morbidity of harvesting of chin grafts: a prospective study. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2001;12(5):495–502.
    1. Cordaro L, Torsello F, Tindara Miuccio M, Mirisola di Torresanto V, 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 Implants Research. 2011;22(11):1320–1326.
    1. Raghoebar GM, Louwerse C, Kalk WWI, Vissink A. Morbidity of chin bone harvesting. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2001;12(5):503–507.
    1. Cawood JI, Howell RA. A classification of the edentulous jaws. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 1988;17(4):232–236.
    1. Barone A, Covani U. Maxillary alveolar ridge reconstruction with nonvascularized autogenous block bone: clinical results. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2007;65(10):2039–2046.
    1. Gomes KU, Carlini JL, Biron C, Rapoport A, Dedivitis RA. Use of Allogeneic Bone Graft in Maxillary Reconstruction for Installation of Dental Implants. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2008;66(11):2335–2338.
    1. Contar CMM, Sarot JR, Bordini J, Jr., Galvão GH, Nicolau GV, Machado MAN. Maxillary ridge augmentation with fresh-frozen bone allografts. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2009;67(6):1280–1285.
    1. Spin-Neto R, Stavropoulos A, Pereira LAVD, Marcantonio E, Wenzel A. Fate of autologous and fresh-frozen allogeneic block bone grafts used for ridge augmentation. A CBCT-based analysis. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2013;24(2):167–173.
    1. Boniello R, Gasparini G, D'Amato G, et al. Reconstruction of severe atrophic jaws with Fresh Frized Bone Allografts: clinical histologic and histomorphometric evaluation. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences. 2013;17(10):1411–1418.
    1. Alonso N, Machado de Almeida O, Jorgetti V, Amarante MTJ. Cranial versus iliac onlay bone grafts in the facial skeleton: a macroscopic and histomorphometric study. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 1995;6(2):113–119.
    1. Dado DV, Izquierdo R. Absorption of onlay bone grafts in immature rabbits: membranous versus enchondral bone and bone struts versus paste. Annals of Plastic Surgery. 1989;23(1):39–48.
    1. Zins JE, Whitaker LA. Membranous versus endochondral bone: implications for craniofacial reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 1983;72(6):778–785.
    1. Hardesty RA, Marsh JL. Craniofacial onlay bone grafting: a prospective evaluation of graft morphology, orientation, and embryonic origin. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 1990;85(1):5–14, 15.
    1. Ozaki W, Buchman SR. Volume maintenance of onlay bone grafts in the craniofacial skeleton: micro-architecture versus embryologic origin. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 1998;102(2):291–299.
    1. Donovan MG, Dickerson NC, Hellstein JW, Hanson LJ. Autologous calvarial and iliac onlay bone grafts in miniature swine. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 1993;51(8):898–903.
    1. de Vos W, Casselman J, Swennen GRJ. Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2009;38(6):609–625.
    1. Smolka W, Eggensperger N, Carollo V, Ozdoba C, Iizuka T. Changes in the volume and density of calvarial split bone grafts after alveolar ridge augmentation. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2006;17(2):149–155.
    1. Uchida Y, Goto M, Katsuki T, Soejima Y. Measurement of maxillary sinus volume using computerized tomographic images. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. 1998;13(6):811–818.
    1. Acocella A, Bertolai R, Ellis E, III, Nissan J, Sacco R. Maxillary alveolar ridge reconstruction with monocortical fresh-frozen bone blocks: a clinical, histological and histomorphometric study. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery. 2012;40(6):525–533.
    1. MacEdo LGS, Mazzucchelli-Cosmo LA, MacEdo NL, Monteiro ASF, Sendyk WR. Fresh-frozen human bone allograft in vertical ridge augmentation: clinical and tomographic evaluation of bone formation and resorption. Cell and Tissue Banking. 2012;13(4):577–586.
    1. Deluiz D, Oliveira LS, Pires FR, Tinoco EMB. Time-dependent changes in fresh-frozen bone block grafts: tomographic, histologic, and histomorphometric findings. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2013
    1. Spin-Neto R, Stavropoulos A, Pereira LAVD, Marcantonio E, Jr., Wenzel A. Fate of autologous and fresh-frozen allogeneic block bone grafts used for ridge augmentation. A CBCT-based analysis. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2013;24(2):167–173.
    1. Lumetti S, Consolo U, Galli C, et al. Fresh-frozen bone blocks for horizontal ridge augmentation in the upper maxilla: 6-month outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2012;16(1):116–123.
    1. Carinci F, Farina A, Zanetti U, et al. Alveolar ridge augmentation: a comparative longitudinal study between calvaria and iliac crest bone grafrs. The Journal of Oral Implantology. 2005;31(1):39–45.
    1. Norton MR, Gamble C. Bone classification: an objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2001;12(1):79–84.
    1. Spin-Neto R, Landazuri del Barrio RA, Pereira LAVD, Marcantonio RAC, Marcantonio E, Marcantonio E., Jr. Clinical similarities and histological diversity comparing fresh frozen onlay bone blocks allografts and autografts in human maxillary reconstruction. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2013;15(4):490–497.
    1. Orsini G, Stacchi C, Visintini E, et al. Clinical and histologic evaluation of fresh frozen human bone grafts for horizontal reconstruction of maxillary alveolar ridges. The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry. 2011;31(5):535–544.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する