Graft incorporation and implant osseointegration following the use of autologous and fresh-frozen allogeneic block bone grafts for lateral ridge augmentation

DSpace Repository

Graft incorporation and implant osseointegration following the use of autologous and fresh-frozen allogeneic block bone grafts for lateral ridge augmentation

Show full item record

Files for download

Find Full text There are no files associated with this item.

Facebook

Simple item record

Publication Article, peer reviewed scientific
Title Graft incorporation and implant osseointegration following the use of autologous and fresh-frozen allogeneic block bone grafts for lateral ridge augmentation
Author(s) Spin-Neto, Rubens ; Stavropoulos, Andreas ; Coletti, Felipe Leite ; Faeda, Rafael Silveira ; Pereira, Luís Antônio Violin Dias ; Marcantonio Jr, Elcio
Date 2014
English abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare autogenous bone (AT) and fresh-frozen allogeneic bone (AL) in terms of histomorphometrical graft incorporation and implant osseointegration after grafting for lateral ridge augmentation in humans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients were treated with either AL (20 patients) or AT (14 patients) onlay grafts. During implant installation surgery 6 months after grafting, cylindrical biopsies were harvested perpendicularly to the lateral aspect of the augmented alveolar ridge. Additionally, titanium mini-implants were installed in the grafted regions, also perpendicularly to the ridge; these were biopsied during second-stage surgery. Histological/histomorphometric analysis was performed using decalcified and non-decalcified sections. RESULTS: Histological analysis revealed areas of necrotic bone (NcB) occasionally in contact with or completely engulfed by newly formed vital bone (VB) in both AT and AL groups (55.9 ± 27.6 vs. 43.1 ± 20.3, respectively; P = 0.19). Statistically significant larger amounts of VB (27.6 ± 17.5 vs. 8.4 ± 4.9, respectively; P = 0.0002) and less soft connective tissue (ST) (16.4 ± 15.6 vs. 48.4 ± 18.1, respectively; P ≤ 0.0001) were seen for AT compared with AL. No significant differences were observed between the groups regarding both bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and the bone area between implant threads (BA) on the mini-implant biopsies. CONCLUSION: Allogeneic bone block grafts may be an option in cases where a limited amount of augmentation is needed, and the future implant can be expected confined within the inner aspect of the bone block. However, the clinical impact of the relatively poor graft incorporation on the long-term performance of oral implants placed in AL grafts remains obscure.
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.12107 (link to publisher's fulltext)
Publisher Wiley
Host/Issue Clinical Oral Implants Research;2
Volume 25
ISSN 1600-0501
Pages 226–233
Language eng (iso)
Subject(s) bone allograft
bone autograft
ELISA
immunological evalaution
ridge augmentation
Medicine
Research Subject Categories::ODONTOLOGY
Handle http://hdl.handle.net/2043/16249 (link to this page)

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record

Search


Browse

My Account

Statistics