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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |