Complications in the use of the mandibular body, ramus and symphysis as donor sites in bone graft surgery. A systematic review

David Reininger, Carlos Cobo-Vázquez, Marta Monteserín-Matesanz, Juan López-Quiles, David Reininger, Carlos Cobo-Vázquez, Marta Monteserín-Matesanz, Juan López-Quiles

Abstract

Background: To develop a systematic review by assessing and comparing the different complications that occurs in bone graft surgery using the mandibular body, ramus and symphysis as donor sites.

Material and methods: In order to respond to the following question, a systematic review was developed: does the use of intraoral mandibular body and ramus as donor sites in bone graft surgery, produce fewer and less severe complications in comparison to the use of the mandibular symphysis in patients that present bone resorption that needs augmentation using autologous grafts? The review was carried out between January 1990 and 2015, during which only clinical essays with a minimum follow-up period of six months were included.

Results: The initial search yielded a total of 2912 articles, of which 6 were finally selected. In total, 259 graft surgeries were performed; 118 using the mandibular body and ramus as donor sites, and 141, the symphysis. The most frequent complications that arose when using the mandibular symphysis were temporary sensory alterations in the anterior teeth (33.87%), followed by sensory alterations of the skin and mucosa (18.57%). As for the mandibular body and ramus donor sites, the most frequent complications relate to temporary sensory alterations of the mucosa (8.19%) and to minor postoperative bleeding (6.55%).

Conclusions: The analyzed results show a higher prevalence and severity of complications when using mandibular symphysis bone grafts, producing more discomfort for the patient. Therefore, it would be advisable to perform further clinical essays due to the lack of studies found.

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 (based on PRISMA format) on the research and selection process.

References

    1. Al-Nawas B, Schiegnitz E. Augmentation procedures using bone substitute materials or autogenous bone - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Oral Implantol. 20142;7 Suppl 2:S219–34.
    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(Supple):49–70.
    1. Rabelo GD, de Paula PM, Rocha FS, Jordão Silva C, Zanetta-Barbosa D. Retrospective study of bone grafting procedures before implant placement. Implant Dent. 2010;19:342–50.
    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. Silva FMS, Cortez ALV, Moreira RWF, Mazzonetto R. Complications of intraoral donor site for bone grafting prior to implant placement. Implant Dent. 2006;15:420–6.
    1. Misch CM. Comparison of intraoral donor sites for onlay grafting prior to implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12:767–76.
    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. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22:1320–6.
    1. Schwartz-Arad D, Levin L, Sigal L. Surgical success of intraoral autogenous block onlay bone grafting for alveolar ridge augmentation. Implant Dent. 2005;14:131–8.
    1. Carlsen A, Gorst-Rasmussen A, Jensen T. Donor site morbidity associated with autogenous bone harvesting from the ascending mandibular ramus. Implant Dent. 2013;22:503–6.
    1. Al-Ani O, Nambiar P, Ha KO, Ngeow WC. Safe zone for bone harvesting from the interforaminal region of the mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(Suppl A):115–21.
    1. Kim YK, Hwang JW, Lee HJ, Yun PY. Use of the coronoid process as a donor site for sinus augmentation: a case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24:1149–52.
    1. Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH, Miguel-Sánchez A, Orive G. Surgical correction of horizontal bone defect using the lateral maxillary wall: Outcomes of a retrospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72:683–93.
    1. Tolstunov L. Maxillary Tuberosity Block Bone Graft: Innovative Technique and Case Report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67:1723–9.
    1. Kainulainen VT, Sàndor GKB, Carmichael RP, Oikarinen KS. Safety of zygomatic bone harvesting: a prospective study of 32 consecutive patients with simultaneous zygomatic bone grafting and 1-stage implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005;20:245–52.
    1. Jun JH, Peacock Z, Pogrel MA. Alveolar ridge augmentation using Lingual Tori. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68:2906–8.
    1. Cho YS, Hwang KG, Park CJ. Postoperative effects of anterior nasal spine bone harvesting on overall nasal shape. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:618–22.
    1. Acocella A, Bertolai R, Colafranceschi M, Sacco R. Clinical, histological and histomorphometric evaluation of the healing of mandibular ramus bone block grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation before implant placement. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2010;38:222–30.
    1. Fakhry A. The mandibular retromolar area as a donor site in maxillofacial bone grafting: surgical notes. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2011;31:275–83.
    1. Raghoebar GM, Meijndert L, Kalk WWI, Vissink A. Morbidity of mandibular bone harvesting: a comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22:359–65.
    1. Gapski R, Wang HL, Misch CE. Management of incision design in symphysis graft procedures: a review of the literature. J Oral Implantol. 2001;27:134–42.
    1. Cranin AN, Katzap M, Demirdjan E, Ley J. Autogenous bone ridge augmentation using the mandibular symphysis as a donor. J Oral Implantol. 2001;27:43–7.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1006–12.
    1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172:137–59.
    1. Nkenke E, Stelzle F. Clinical outcomes of sinus floor augmentation for implant placement using autogenous bone or bone substitutes: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20 (Suppl4):124–33.
    1. Barone A, Covani U. Maxillary alveolar ridge reconstruction with nonvascularized autogenous block bone: clinical results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65:2039–46.
    1. Cordaro L, Amadé 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. Andersson L. Patient self-evaluation of intra-oral bone grafting treatment to the maxillary frontal region. Dent Traumatol. 2008;24:164–9.
    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. Nóia CF, Rodríguez-Chessa JG, Ortega-Lopes R, Cabral-Andrade V, Barbeiro RH, Mazzonetto R. Prospective study of soft tissue contour changes following chin bone graft harvesting. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41:176–9.
    1. Dik E, De Ruiter P, Van Der Bilt Koole R. Effect on the contour of bone and soft tissue one year after harvesting chin bone for alveolar cleft repair. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;39:962–7.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj