Cargando…

Vertical augmentation of the atrofic posterior mandibular ridges with onlay grafts: Intraoral blocks vs. guided bone regeneration. Systematic review

BACKGROUND: The high resorption rate of intra-oral Onlay block grafts, coupled with morbidity and limited bone availability, means that the use of guided bone regeneration (GBR) may be preferable for vertical augmentation of mandibular atrophic posterior sectors. Aims: To evaluate the bone gain and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Robert, Louise, Aloy-Prósper, Amparo, Arias-Herrera, Santiago
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medicina Oral S.L. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10198694/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37214750
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.60294
_version_ 1785044788821622784
author Robert, Louise
Aloy-Prósper, Amparo
Arias-Herrera, Santiago
author_facet Robert, Louise
Aloy-Prósper, Amparo
Arias-Herrera, Santiago
author_sort Robert, Louise
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The high resorption rate of intra-oral Onlay block grafts, coupled with morbidity and limited bone availability, means that the use of guided bone regeneration (GBR) may be preferable for vertical augmentation of mandibular atrophic posterior sectors. Aims: To evaluate the bone gain and surface resorption of the intraoral Onlay block graft compared to the GBR; as well as to study postoperative complications, survival and success rates of dental implant, and peri-implant marginal bone loss. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web Of Science databases on bone augmentation with intraoral autologous onlay block graft or GBR until December 2021. RESULTS: Of 214 potentially eligible papers, 11 complied with the inclusion criteria: 5 studies on block graft technique, 5 on GBR technique and 1 was a comparison of both treatment groups. In the block graft group, the mean vertical bone gain was 4.05mm with a mean resorption of 0.84mm (17.70%); the complication rate was 20%; the survival and success rates were 100% and 92.23% respectively and the mean peri-implant bone loss was 0.22mm at 12 months. For the GBR group, the mean bone gain was 4.7mm with a mean resorption of 0.33mm (15.08%); the complication rate was 11.6%; the survival rate was 100% and the mean peri-implant bone loss was 0.95mm at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limitations, the GBR technique seems to achieve greater bone gain with less superficial resorption as well as fewer complications, but it presents a greater peri-implant loss at 12 months. Key words:Onlay block graft, Guided Bone Regeneration, intraoral bone, augmentation procedure.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10198694
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Medicina Oral S.L.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101986942023-05-20 Vertical augmentation of the atrofic posterior mandibular ridges with onlay grafts: Intraoral blocks vs. guided bone regeneration. Systematic review Robert, Louise Aloy-Prósper, Amparo Arias-Herrera, Santiago J Clin Exp Dent Research BACKGROUND: The high resorption rate of intra-oral Onlay block grafts, coupled with morbidity and limited bone availability, means that the use of guided bone regeneration (GBR) may be preferable for vertical augmentation of mandibular atrophic posterior sectors. Aims: To evaluate the bone gain and surface resorption of the intraoral Onlay block graft compared to the GBR; as well as to study postoperative complications, survival and success rates of dental implant, and peri-implant marginal bone loss. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web Of Science databases on bone augmentation with intraoral autologous onlay block graft or GBR until December 2021. RESULTS: Of 214 potentially eligible papers, 11 complied with the inclusion criteria: 5 studies on block graft technique, 5 on GBR technique and 1 was a comparison of both treatment groups. In the block graft group, the mean vertical bone gain was 4.05mm with a mean resorption of 0.84mm (17.70%); the complication rate was 20%; the survival and success rates were 100% and 92.23% respectively and the mean peri-implant bone loss was 0.22mm at 12 months. For the GBR group, the mean bone gain was 4.7mm with a mean resorption of 0.33mm (15.08%); the complication rate was 11.6%; the survival rate was 100% and the mean peri-implant bone loss was 0.95mm at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limitations, the GBR technique seems to achieve greater bone gain with less superficial resorption as well as fewer complications, but it presents a greater peri-implant loss at 12 months. Key words:Onlay block graft, Guided Bone Regeneration, intraoral bone, augmentation procedure. Medicina Oral S.L. 2023-05-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10198694/ /pubmed/37214750 http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.60294 Text en Copyright: © 2023 Medicina Oral S.L. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Robert, Louise
Aloy-Prósper, Amparo
Arias-Herrera, Santiago
Vertical augmentation of the atrofic posterior mandibular ridges with onlay grafts: Intraoral blocks vs. guided bone regeneration. Systematic review
title Vertical augmentation of the atrofic posterior mandibular ridges with onlay grafts: Intraoral blocks vs. guided bone regeneration. Systematic review
title_full Vertical augmentation of the atrofic posterior mandibular ridges with onlay grafts: Intraoral blocks vs. guided bone regeneration. Systematic review
title_fullStr Vertical augmentation of the atrofic posterior mandibular ridges with onlay grafts: Intraoral blocks vs. guided bone regeneration. Systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Vertical augmentation of the atrofic posterior mandibular ridges with onlay grafts: Intraoral blocks vs. guided bone regeneration. Systematic review
title_short Vertical augmentation of the atrofic posterior mandibular ridges with onlay grafts: Intraoral blocks vs. guided bone regeneration. Systematic review
title_sort vertical augmentation of the atrofic posterior mandibular ridges with onlay grafts: intraoral blocks vs. guided bone regeneration. systematic review
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10198694/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37214750
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.60294
work_keys_str_mv AT robertlouise verticalaugmentationoftheatroficposteriormandibularridgeswithonlaygraftsintraoralblocksvsguidedboneregenerationsystematicreview
AT aloyprosperamparo verticalaugmentationoftheatroficposteriormandibularridgeswithonlaygraftsintraoralblocksvsguidedboneregenerationsystematicreview
AT ariasherrerasantiago verticalaugmentationoftheatroficposteriormandibularridgeswithonlaygraftsintraoralblocksvsguidedboneregenerationsystematicreview