The outcome of intraoral onlay block bone grafts on alveolar ridge augmentations: a systematic review

Amparo Aloy-Prósper, David Peñarrocha-Oltra, Maria Peñarrocha-Diago, Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago, Amparo Aloy-Prósper, David Peñarrocha-Oltra, Maria Peñarrocha-Diago, Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study was to systematically review clinical studies examining the survival and success rates of implants placed with intraoral onlay autogenous bone grafts to answer the following question: do ridge augmentations procedures with intraoral onlay block bone grafts in conjunction with or prior to implant placement influence implant outcome when compared with a control group (guided bone regeneration, alveolar distraction, native bone or short dental implants.)?

Material and method: An electronic data banks and hand searching were used to find relevant articles on vertical and lateral augmentation procedures performed with intraoral onlay block bone grafts for dental implant therapy published up to October 2013. Publications in English, on human subjects, with a controlled study design -involving at least one group with defects treated with intraoral onlay block bone grafts, more than five patients and a minimum follow-up of 12 months after prosthetic loading were included. Two reviewers extracted the data.

Results: A total of 6 studies met the inclusion criteria: 4 studies on horizontal augmentation and 2 studies on vertical augmentation. Intraoperative complications were not reported. Most common postsurgical complications included mainly mucosal dehiscences (4 studies), bone graft or membrane exposures (3 studies), complete failures of block grafts (2 studies) and neurosensory alterations (4 studies). For lateral augmentation procedures, implant survival rates ranged from 96.9% to 100%, while for vertical augmentation they ranged from 89.5% to 100%. None article studied the soft tissues healing.

Conclusions: Survival and success rates of implants placed in horizontally and vertically resorbed edentulous ridges reconstructed with block bone grafts are similar to those of implants placed in native bone, in distracted sites or with guided bone regeneration. More surgical challenges and morbidity arise from vertical augmentations, thus short implants may be a feasible option.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest statement: The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram showing study selection for the review.

References

    1. Chiapasco M, Zaniboni M, Boisco M. Augmentation procedures for the rehabilitation of deficient edentulous ridges with oral implants. Clin Oral Implant Res. 2006;17 Suppl2:136–159.
    1. Fu JH, Wang HL. Horizontal bone augmentation: the decision tree. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2011;31:429–36.
    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;2:167–84.
    1. Clementini M, Morlupi A, Agrestini C, Ottria L. Success rate of dental implants inserted in autologous bone graft regenerated areas: a systematic review. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2011;4:3–10.
    1. Donos N, Mardas N, Chadha V. Clinical outcomes of implants following lateral bone augmentation: systematic assessment of available options (barrier membranes, bone grafts, split osteotomy) J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35:173–202.
    1. Kuchler U, von Arx T. Horizontal ridge augmentation in conjunction with or prior to implant placement in the anterior maxilla: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29:14–24.
    1. Fiorellini JP, Nevins ML. Localized ridge augmentation/preservation. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol. 2003;8:321–327.
    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. Proussaefs P, Lozada J. The use of intraorally harvested autogenous block grafts for vertical alveolar ridge augmentation: a human study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2005;25:351–63.
    1. Roccuzzo M, Ramieri G, Spada MC, Bianchi SD, Berrone S. Vertical alveolar ridge augmentation by means of a titanium mesh and autogenous bone grafts. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15:73–81.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8:336–41.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics. 1977;33:363–74.
    1. Ozkan Y, Ozcan M, Varol A, Akoglu B, Ucankale M, Basa S. Resonance frequency analysis assessment of implant stability in labial onlay grafted posterior mandibles: a pilot clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22:235–42.
    1. Cordaro L, Torsello F, Morcavallo S, di Torresanto VM. Effect of bovine bone and collagen membranes on healing of mandibular bone blocks: a prospective randomized controlled study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22:1145–50.
    1. Peñarrocha-Diago M, Aloy-Prósper A, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Guirado JL, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Localized lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with block bone grafts: simultaneous versus delayed implant placement: a clinical and radiographic retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28:846–53.
    1. Meijndert L, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ, Vissink A. Clinical and radiographic characteristics of single-tooth replacements preceded by local ridge augmentation: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19:1295–303.
    1. Chiapasco M, Zaniboni M, Rimondini L. Autogenous onlay bone grafts vs. alveolar distraction osteogenesis for the correction of vertically deficient edentulous ridges: a 2-4-year prospective study on humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18:432–40.
    1. Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Aloy-Prósper A, Cervera-Ballester J, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Canullo L, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Implant treatment in atrophic posterior mandibles: vertical regeneration with block bone grafts versus implants with 5.5-mm intrabony length. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29:659–66.
    1. Louis PJ. Bone grafting the mandible. Dent Clin North Am. 2011;55:673–95.
    1. Pommer B, Frantal S, Willer J, Posch M, Watzek G, Tepper G. Impact of dental implant length on early failure rates: a meta-analysis of observational studies. J Clin Periodontol. 2011;38:856–63.
    1. Neldam CA, Pinholt EM. State of the Art of Short Dental Implants: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14:622–32.
    1. Antoun H, Sitbon JM, Martinez H, Missika P. A prospective randomized study comparing two techniques of bone augmentation: onlay graft alone or associated with a membrane. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001;12:632–9.
    1. von Arx T, Buser D. Horizontal ridge augmentation using autogenous block grafts and the guided bone regeneration technique with collagen membranes: a clinical study with 42 patients. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17:359–66.
    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. Proussaefs P, Lozada J. The use of resorbable collagen membrane in conjunction with autogenous bone graft and inorganic bovine mineral for buccal/labial alveolar ridge augmentation: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90:530–8.
    1. Hiatt WH, Schallhorn RG. Intraoral transplants of cancellous bone and marrow in periodontal lesions. J Periodontol. 1973;44:194–208.
    1. Tolman DE. Reconstructive procedures with endosseous implants in grafted bone: a review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995;10:275–94.
    1. Brener D. The mandibular ramus donor site. Aust Dent J. 2006;51:187–90.
    1. Clavero J, Lundgren S. Ramus or chin grafts for maxillary sinus inlay and local onlay augmentation: comparison of donor site morbidity and complications. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5:154–60.
    1. von Arx T, Häfliger J, Chappuis V. Neurosensory disturbances following bone harvesting in the symphysis: a prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16:432–9.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj