Cargando…

Retrospective Evaluation of Implants Placed in Iliac Crest Autografts and Pristine Bone

Objective: Iliac crest autografts can compensate for severe mandibular atrophy before implant placement. However, the implant success in the augmented bone is not entirely predictable. Here we performed a retrospective cohort study to determine the success and related parameters of implants placed i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Beck, Florian, Watzak, Georg, Lettner, Stefan, Gahleitner, André, Gruber, Reinhard, Dvorak, Gabriella, Ulm, Christian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8910966/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35268457
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11051367
_version_ 1784666652667805696
author Beck, Florian
Watzak, Georg
Lettner, Stefan
Gahleitner, André
Gruber, Reinhard
Dvorak, Gabriella
Ulm, Christian
author_facet Beck, Florian
Watzak, Georg
Lettner, Stefan
Gahleitner, André
Gruber, Reinhard
Dvorak, Gabriella
Ulm, Christian
author_sort Beck, Florian
collection PubMed
description Objective: Iliac crest autografts can compensate for severe mandibular atrophy before implant placement. However, the implant success in the augmented bone is not entirely predictable. Here we performed a retrospective cohort study to determine the success and related parameters of implants placed in augmented bone and pristine bone for up to 11 years. Material and Methods: We analyzed 18 patients where 72 implants were placed six months after iliac crest transplantation and 19 patients where 76 implants were placed in pristine bone. The primary endpoint was implant loss. Secondary endpoints were the implant success, peri-implant bone loss, and the clinical parameters related to peri-implantitis. Moreover, we evaluated the oral-health-related quality of life (OHIP). Results: Within a mean follow-up of 5.8 ± 2.2 and 7.6 ± 2.8 years, six but no implants were lost when placed in augmented and pristine bone, respectively. Among those implants remaining in situ, 58% and 68% were rated as implant success (p = 0.09). A total of 11% and 16% of the implants placed in the augmented and the pristine bone were identified as peri-implantitis (p = 0.08). Bone loss was similar in both groups, with a mean of 2.95 ± 1.72 mm and 2.44 ± 0.76 mm. The mean OHIP scores were 16.36 ± 13.76 and 8.78 ± 7.21 in the augmentation and the control group, respectively (p = 0.35). Conclusions: Implants placed in iliac crest autografts have a higher risk for implant loss and lower implant success rates compared to those placed in the pristine bone.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8910966
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89109662022-03-11 Retrospective Evaluation of Implants Placed in Iliac Crest Autografts and Pristine Bone Beck, Florian Watzak, Georg Lettner, Stefan Gahleitner, André Gruber, Reinhard Dvorak, Gabriella Ulm, Christian J Clin Med Article Objective: Iliac crest autografts can compensate for severe mandibular atrophy before implant placement. However, the implant success in the augmented bone is not entirely predictable. Here we performed a retrospective cohort study to determine the success and related parameters of implants placed in augmented bone and pristine bone for up to 11 years. Material and Methods: We analyzed 18 patients where 72 implants were placed six months after iliac crest transplantation and 19 patients where 76 implants were placed in pristine bone. The primary endpoint was implant loss. Secondary endpoints were the implant success, peri-implant bone loss, and the clinical parameters related to peri-implantitis. Moreover, we evaluated the oral-health-related quality of life (OHIP). Results: Within a mean follow-up of 5.8 ± 2.2 and 7.6 ± 2.8 years, six but no implants were lost when placed in augmented and pristine bone, respectively. Among those implants remaining in situ, 58% and 68% were rated as implant success (p = 0.09). A total of 11% and 16% of the implants placed in the augmented and the pristine bone were identified as peri-implantitis (p = 0.08). Bone loss was similar in both groups, with a mean of 2.95 ± 1.72 mm and 2.44 ± 0.76 mm. The mean OHIP scores were 16.36 ± 13.76 and 8.78 ± 7.21 in the augmentation and the control group, respectively (p = 0.35). Conclusions: Implants placed in iliac crest autografts have a higher risk for implant loss and lower implant success rates compared to those placed in the pristine bone. MDPI 2022-03-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8910966/ /pubmed/35268457 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11051367 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Beck, Florian
Watzak, Georg
Lettner, Stefan
Gahleitner, André
Gruber, Reinhard
Dvorak, Gabriella
Ulm, Christian
Retrospective Evaluation of Implants Placed in Iliac Crest Autografts and Pristine Bone
title Retrospective Evaluation of Implants Placed in Iliac Crest Autografts and Pristine Bone
title_full Retrospective Evaluation of Implants Placed in Iliac Crest Autografts and Pristine Bone
title_fullStr Retrospective Evaluation of Implants Placed in Iliac Crest Autografts and Pristine Bone
title_full_unstemmed Retrospective Evaluation of Implants Placed in Iliac Crest Autografts and Pristine Bone
title_short Retrospective Evaluation of Implants Placed in Iliac Crest Autografts and Pristine Bone
title_sort retrospective evaluation of implants placed in iliac crest autografts and pristine bone
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8910966/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35268457
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11051367
work_keys_str_mv AT beckflorian retrospectiveevaluationofimplantsplacediniliaccrestautograftsandpristinebone
AT watzakgeorg retrospectiveevaluationofimplantsplacediniliaccrestautograftsandpristinebone
AT lettnerstefan retrospectiveevaluationofimplantsplacediniliaccrestautograftsandpristinebone
AT gahleitnerandre retrospectiveevaluationofimplantsplacediniliaccrestautograftsandpristinebone
AT gruberreinhard retrospectiveevaluationofimplantsplacediniliaccrestautograftsandpristinebone
AT dvorakgabriella retrospectiveevaluationofimplantsplacediniliaccrestautograftsandpristinebone
AT ulmchristian retrospectiveevaluationofimplantsplacediniliaccrestautograftsandpristinebone