Clinical results of localized alveolar ridge augmentation with bone grafts harvested from symphysis in comparison with ramus

Reza Pourabbas, Saeed Nezafati, Reza Pourabbas, Saeed Nezafati

Abstract

Background and aims: Autogenous onlay bone grafting is a common procedure for alveolar ridge augmentation. It has been suggested that the amount of healed bone after this technique would be significantly less than the initial quantity. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between the various parameters influencing the outcome of ridge augmentation procedures.

Materials and methods: Thirty-two patients, 17 males and 15 females (mean age 40 ± 8.66), requiring lateral ridge augmentation in the anterior maxilla were recruited. Bone grafts obtained from either the mandibular ramus or symphysis were grafted on the recipient site and the buccolingual dimensions of the edentulous ridge before and six months after the procedure were measured and the difference between them was considered as ridge augmentation (RA). Parameters including graft thickness (GT), graft area (GA) and donor site (DS) were also recorded.

Results: Onlay bone grafts, taken from mandibular and symphysis areas, significantly increased the buccolingual dimension of the alveolar ridge (mean 1.98 ± 1.22 mm, p< 0.001). However, the mean RA by symphysis grafts was significantly greater than ramus grafts (2.49 mm vs. 1.48 mm). There was also a significant correlation between graft thickness, surface area and the amount of bone augmentation.

Conclusion: Symphysis area provides thicker and larger grafts, which may result in a better clinical outcome in alveolar ridge augmentation.

Keywords: Autogenous bone graft; guided bone regeneration; onlay bone graft; ridge augmentation.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1

References

    1. Buser D, Dahlin C, Schenk RK. Guided Tissue Regeneration in Iimplant Dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1994.
    1. McCarthy C, Patel RR, Wragg PF, Brook IM. Dental implants and onlay bone grafts in the anterior maxilla: analysis of clinical outcome. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants . 2003;18:238–41.
    1. Capelli M. Autogenous bone graft from the mandibular ramus: a technique for bone augmentation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003;23:277–85.
    1. Zeiter DJ, Reis WL, Sanders JJ. The use of bone block graft from the chin for alveolar ridge augmentation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2000;20:619–27.
    1. Hunt DR, Jovanovic SA. Autogenous bone harvesting: a chin graft technique for particulate and nonparticulate bone blocks. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1997;19:165–73.
    1. Misch CM, Misch CE, Resnik R, Ismail YH. Reconstruction of maxillary alveolar defects with mandibular symphysis grafts for dental implants: a preliminary procedural report. Int Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992;7:369–66.
    1. Fonseca RJ, Clark PJ, Burkes EJ Jr, Backer RD. Revascularization and healing of onlay particulate autogenous bone grafts in primates. J Oral Surg. 1980;38:527–77.
    1. Shih MS, Norrdin RW. Regeneration acceleration of remodeling during healing of bone defects in beagle doges of various ages. Bone. 1985;6:377–79.
    1. Glowacki J, Kaban LB, Murray JE, Folkman J, Mulliken JB. Application of the biologic principle of induced osteogenesis for craniofacial defects. Lancet. 1981;1(8227):959–62.
    1. Simion M. Procedures used to augment the deficient alveolar ridge. In: Lindhe J, Karring T, Lang NP. Clinical Periodontology and Implant Dentistry. 4th ed. UK: Blackwell Munksgaard; 2003. 897-914
    1. Tinti C, Banfenati SP, Polizzi G. Vertical ridge augmentation: What is the limit? Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1996;16
    1. Van der Meij, Blankestijn J, Berns RM, Bun RJ, Jovanovic A, Onland JM, Schoen J. The combined use of two endosteal implants and iliac crest onlay grafts in the severely atrophic mandible by a modified surgical approach. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;34:152–7.
    1. Maiorana C, Beretta M, Salina S, Santoro F. Reduction of autogenous bone graft resorption by means of Bio-oss coverage: a prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent . 2005;25:19–25.
    1. Cordaro L, Amade DS, Cordaro M. Clinical results of alveolar ridge augmentation with mandibular block bone grafts in partially edentulous patients prior to implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13:103–11.
    1. D'Addona A, Nowzari H. Intramembranous autogenous osseous transplant of alveolar atrophy. Periodontol 2000 . 2001;27:148–61.
    1. Stevenson S, Davy DT, Klein L, Goldberg VM. Critical biologic determinants of incorporation of non-vascularized cortical bone grafts: Quantification of a complex process and structure. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:1–16.
    1. Zins JE, Witaker LA. Membranous versus endochondral bone: Implication for craniofacial reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1983;72:778–85.
    1. Linn KY, Barlett SP, Yaremchuk MJ, Grossman RF, Witaker LA. The effect of rigid fixation on the survival of onlay bone grafts: An experimental study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;86:449–56.
    1. Rabie ABM, Dan Z, Samman N. Ultrastructural identification of intramembranous and endochondral bones. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996;25:383–86.
    1. Buchman SR, Ozaki W. The ultrastructure and resorptive pattern of cancellous onlay bone grafts in the craniofacial skeleton. Ann Plast Surg. 1999;43:49–56.
    1. Ozaki W, Buchman SR. Volume maintenance of onlay bone grafts in the craniofacial skeleton: Micro-architecture versus embryologic origin. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102:291–99.
    1. Pogrel MA, Podlesh S, Anthony JP, Alexander J. A comparison of vascularized and non-vascularized bone grafts for reconstruction of mandibular continuity defects. J oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997;55:1200–08.
    1. Cordeiro PG, Haidalgo DA. Conceptual consideration in mandibular reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg. 1995;22:61–9.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj