Clinical and radiographic outcomes of allogeneic block grafts for maxillary lateral ridge augmentation: A randomized clinical trial
Background A main drawback of bone block graft surgery is the resorption occurring in early stages of healing. To our knowledge, there are no studies comparing outcomes of freeze‐dried bone allograft (FDBA) blocks with different architecture. Purpose The aim of this work was to investigate different...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical implant dentistry and related research 2019-10, Vol.21 (5), p.1087-1098 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1098 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 1087 |
| container_title | Clinical implant dentistry and related research |
| container_volume | 21 |
| creator | G. F. Tresguerres, Francisco Cortes, Arthur R. G. Hernandez Vallejo, Gonzalo Cabrejos‐Azama, Jatsue Tamimi, Faleh Torres, Jesusis |
| description | Background
A main drawback of bone block graft surgery is the resorption occurring in early stages of healing. To our knowledge, there are no studies comparing outcomes of freeze‐dried bone allograft (FDBA) blocks with different architecture.
Purpose
The aim of this work was to investigate different factors that can affect graft resorption and to compare the resorption rates of two different types of allogeneic blocks, corticocancellous and cancellous.
Materials and Methods
A randomized clinical trial was designed. Twenty‐eight patients referred for onlay bone augmentation prior to implant placement were included in the study. Preoperative computerized tomography (CT) was taken for all patients. Patients received FDBA blocks of either cancellous or corticocancellous bone obtained from the iliac crest. After a 4‐month follow‐up, postoperative CT was taken. Then, another surgery was performed, with the purpose to place dental implants. The aforementioned groups were compared for bone resorption and implant outcome using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and repeated ANOVA measures, respectively. Demographic data, trabecular bone density, and graft sites were also analyzed.
Results
A total of 93 implants were placed in the augmented bone sites over 28 patients. A 100% survival rate was achieved during a mean follow‐up period of 24 months in both groups. Higher bone resorption rate was found with cancellous bone grafts (29.2% ± 2.6) compared with corticocancellous grafts (19.3% ± 2.3). Moreover, higher resorption rates in patients with lower bone density (185 Hounsfield Units) (16.8% ± 2.1) and nonsmokers (22.1% ± 2.3), respectively.
Conclusion
Within the limitations of this study, these findings indicate that both corticocancellous and cancellous FDBA grafts constitute a clinical acceptable alternative for bone reconstruction, although cancellous grafts present higher resorption rates. Moreover, host factors such as patient's low bone density and smoking habits may also increase graft resorption rates. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/cid.12834 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2275250189</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2313487552</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3534-b3c72bd1a4466e271739b65de105d951943a5ecaf85fa6ac30e606b976a35e2b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kT1PHDEQhq0IFMhBkT-ALNGQYsEf6_1IdzoSgoSUJqmtWXv2YvCuL_augLT8cRwOKJBwY4_16JnRvIR85uyU53NmnD3lopHlB7LPa9YUjWDNTn4rIQvWtO0e-ZTSNWOC84p_JHuSl7zN5T55WHk3OgOewmhpBOvCOsLmjzM0zJMJAyYaegrehzWOmL87H8wNzVA_JdqHSAe4c95DvKceJoxZFZ1dI4V5PeA4weTC-JUus3y0YXD_0FLz0nSKDvwB2e3BJzx8vhfk9_dvv1Y_iqufF5er5VVhpJJl0UlTi85yKMuqQlHzWrZdpSxypmyreFtKUGigb1QPFRjJsGJV19YVSIWikwtysvVuYvg7Y5r04JLBPPuIYU5aiFoJxXjTZvT4DXod5jjm6bSQXJZNrfJuF-TLljIxpBSx15vohrwJzZn-n4zOyeinZDJ79GycuwHtK_kSRQbOtsCt83j_vkmvLs-3ykd2nZij</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2313487552</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical and radiographic outcomes of allogeneic block grafts for maxillary lateral ridge augmentation: A randomized clinical trial</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>G. F. Tresguerres, Francisco ; Cortes, Arthur R. G. ; Hernandez Vallejo, Gonzalo ; Cabrejos‐Azama, Jatsue ; Tamimi, Faleh ; Torres, Jesusis</creator><creatorcontrib>G. F. Tresguerres, Francisco ; Cortes, Arthur R. G. ; Hernandez Vallejo, Gonzalo ; Cabrejos‐Azama, Jatsue ; Tamimi, Faleh ; Torres, Jesusis</creatorcontrib><description>Background
A main drawback of bone block graft surgery is the resorption occurring in early stages of healing. To our knowledge, there are no studies comparing outcomes of freeze‐dried bone allograft (FDBA) blocks with different architecture.
Purpose
The aim of this work was to investigate different factors that can affect graft resorption and to compare the resorption rates of two different types of allogeneic blocks, corticocancellous and cancellous.
Materials and Methods
A randomized clinical trial was designed. Twenty‐eight patients referred for onlay bone augmentation prior to implant placement were included in the study. Preoperative computerized tomography (CT) was taken for all patients. Patients received FDBA blocks of either cancellous or corticocancellous bone obtained from the iliac crest. After a 4‐month follow‐up, postoperative CT was taken. Then, another surgery was performed, with the purpose to place dental implants. The aforementioned groups were compared for bone resorption and implant outcome using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and repeated ANOVA measures, respectively. Demographic data, trabecular bone density, and graft sites were also analyzed.
Results
A total of 93 implants were placed in the augmented bone sites over 28 patients. A 100% survival rate was achieved during a mean follow‐up period of 24 months in both groups. Higher bone resorption rate was found with cancellous bone grafts (29.2% ± 2.6) compared with corticocancellous grafts (19.3% ± 2.3). Moreover, higher resorption rates in patients with lower bone density (<185 Hounsfield Units) (31.7% ± 3.1) and smokers (26.39% ± 2.3) were observed when compared with patients with higher bone density (>185 Hounsfield Units) (16.8% ± 2.1) and nonsmokers (22.1% ± 2.3), respectively.
Conclusion
Within the limitations of this study, these findings indicate that both corticocancellous and cancellous FDBA grafts constitute a clinical acceptable alternative for bone reconstruction, although cancellous grafts present higher resorption rates. Moreover, host factors such as patient's low bone density and smoking habits may also increase graft resorption rates.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1523-0899</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1708-8208</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/cid.12834</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31419002</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Alveolar Ridge Augmentation ; Augmentation ; bone block allograft ; Bone density ; Bone grafts ; Bone implants ; Bone resorption ; Bone surgery ; Bone Transplantation ; Cancellous bone ; Clinical trials ; Computed tomography ; Covariance ; Demographics ; Dental Implantation, Endosseous ; Dental Implants ; Dental materials ; Dental prosthetics ; Dentistry ; graft resorption ; Grafting ; Grafts ; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation ; Humans ; Iliac crest ; Maxilla ; Patients ; PRGF ; randomized clinical trial ; Smoking ; Substitute bone ; Surgery ; Surgical implants ; Transplants & implants ; Treatment Outcome ; Variance analysis</subject><ispartof>Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2019-10, Vol.21 (5), p.1087-1098</ispartof><rights>2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3534-b3c72bd1a4466e271739b65de105d951943a5ecaf85fa6ac30e606b976a35e2b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3534-b3c72bd1a4466e271739b65de105d951943a5ecaf85fa6ac30e606b976a35e2b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6591-7256 ; 0000-0003-0546-8000</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fcid.12834$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fcid.12834$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31419002$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>G. F. Tresguerres, Francisco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cortes, Arthur R. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hernandez Vallejo, Gonzalo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cabrejos‐Azama, Jatsue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tamimi, Faleh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Torres, Jesusis</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical and radiographic outcomes of allogeneic block grafts for maxillary lateral ridge augmentation: A randomized clinical trial</title><title>Clinical implant dentistry and related research</title><addtitle>Clin Implant Dent Relat Res</addtitle><description>Background
A main drawback of bone block graft surgery is the resorption occurring in early stages of healing. To our knowledge, there are no studies comparing outcomes of freeze‐dried bone allograft (FDBA) blocks with different architecture.
Purpose
The aim of this work was to investigate different factors that can affect graft resorption and to compare the resorption rates of two different types of allogeneic blocks, corticocancellous and cancellous.
Materials and Methods
A randomized clinical trial was designed. Twenty‐eight patients referred for onlay bone augmentation prior to implant placement were included in the study. Preoperative computerized tomography (CT) was taken for all patients. Patients received FDBA blocks of either cancellous or corticocancellous bone obtained from the iliac crest. After a 4‐month follow‐up, postoperative CT was taken. Then, another surgery was performed, with the purpose to place dental implants. The aforementioned groups were compared for bone resorption and implant outcome using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and repeated ANOVA measures, respectively. Demographic data, trabecular bone density, and graft sites were also analyzed.
Results
A total of 93 implants were placed in the augmented bone sites over 28 patients. A 100% survival rate was achieved during a mean follow‐up period of 24 months in both groups. Higher bone resorption rate was found with cancellous bone grafts (29.2% ± 2.6) compared with corticocancellous grafts (19.3% ± 2.3). Moreover, higher resorption rates in patients with lower bone density (<185 Hounsfield Units) (31.7% ± 3.1) and smokers (26.39% ± 2.3) were observed when compared with patients with higher bone density (>185 Hounsfield Units) (16.8% ± 2.1) and nonsmokers (22.1% ± 2.3), respectively.
Conclusion
Within the limitations of this study, these findings indicate that both corticocancellous and cancellous FDBA grafts constitute a clinical acceptable alternative for bone reconstruction, although cancellous grafts present higher resorption rates. Moreover, host factors such as patient's low bone density and smoking habits may also increase graft resorption rates.</description><subject>Alveolar Ridge Augmentation</subject><subject>Augmentation</subject><subject>bone block allograft</subject><subject>Bone density</subject><subject>Bone grafts</subject><subject>Bone implants</subject><subject>Bone resorption</subject><subject>Bone surgery</subject><subject>Bone Transplantation</subject><subject>Cancellous bone</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Covariance</subject><subject>Demographics</subject><subject>Dental Implantation, Endosseous</subject><subject>Dental Implants</subject><subject>Dental materials</subject><subject>Dental prosthetics</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>graft resorption</subject><subject>Grafting</subject><subject>Grafts</subject><subject>Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Iliac crest</subject><subject>Maxilla</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>PRGF</subject><subject>randomized clinical trial</subject><subject>Smoking</subject><subject>Substitute bone</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical implants</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Variance analysis</subject><issn>1523-0899</issn><issn>1708-8208</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kT1PHDEQhq0IFMhBkT-ALNGQYsEf6_1IdzoSgoSUJqmtWXv2YvCuL_augLT8cRwOKJBwY4_16JnRvIR85uyU53NmnD3lopHlB7LPa9YUjWDNTn4rIQvWtO0e-ZTSNWOC84p_JHuSl7zN5T55WHk3OgOewmhpBOvCOsLmjzM0zJMJAyYaegrehzWOmL87H8wNzVA_JdqHSAe4c95DvKceJoxZFZ1dI4V5PeA4weTC-JUus3y0YXD_0FLz0nSKDvwB2e3BJzx8vhfk9_dvv1Y_iqufF5er5VVhpJJl0UlTi85yKMuqQlHzWrZdpSxypmyreFtKUGigb1QPFRjJsGJV19YVSIWikwtysvVuYvg7Y5r04JLBPPuIYU5aiFoJxXjTZvT4DXod5jjm6bSQXJZNrfJuF-TLljIxpBSx15vohrwJzZn-n4zOyeinZDJ79GycuwHtK_kSRQbOtsCt83j_vkmvLs-3ykd2nZij</recordid><startdate>201910</startdate><enddate>201910</enddate><creator>G. F. Tresguerres, Francisco</creator><creator>Cortes, Arthur R. G.</creator><creator>Hernandez Vallejo, Gonzalo</creator><creator>Cabrejos‐Azama, Jatsue</creator><creator>Tamimi, Faleh</creator><creator>Torres, Jesusis</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6591-7256</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0546-8000</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201910</creationdate><title>Clinical and radiographic outcomes of allogeneic block grafts for maxillary lateral ridge augmentation: A randomized clinical trial</title><author>G. F. Tresguerres, Francisco ; Cortes, Arthur R. G. ; Hernandez Vallejo, Gonzalo ; Cabrejos‐Azama, Jatsue ; Tamimi, Faleh ; Torres, Jesusis</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3534-b3c72bd1a4466e271739b65de105d951943a5ecaf85fa6ac30e606b976a35e2b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Alveolar Ridge Augmentation</topic><topic>Augmentation</topic><topic>bone block allograft</topic><topic>Bone density</topic><topic>Bone grafts</topic><topic>Bone implants</topic><topic>Bone resorption</topic><topic>Bone surgery</topic><topic>Bone Transplantation</topic><topic>Cancellous bone</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Covariance</topic><topic>Demographics</topic><topic>Dental Implantation, Endosseous</topic><topic>Dental Implants</topic><topic>Dental materials</topic><topic>Dental prosthetics</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>graft resorption</topic><topic>Grafting</topic><topic>Grafts</topic><topic>Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Iliac crest</topic><topic>Maxilla</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>PRGF</topic><topic>randomized clinical trial</topic><topic>Smoking</topic><topic>Substitute bone</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical implants</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Variance analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>G. F. Tresguerres, Francisco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cortes, Arthur R. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hernandez Vallejo, Gonzalo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cabrejos‐Azama, Jatsue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tamimi, Faleh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Torres, Jesusis</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical implant dentistry and related research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>G. F. Tresguerres, Francisco</au><au>Cortes, Arthur R. G.</au><au>Hernandez Vallejo, Gonzalo</au><au>Cabrejos‐Azama, Jatsue</au><au>Tamimi, Faleh</au><au>Torres, Jesusis</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical and radiographic outcomes of allogeneic block grafts for maxillary lateral ridge augmentation: A randomized clinical trial</atitle><jtitle>Clinical implant dentistry and related research</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Implant Dent Relat Res</addtitle><date>2019-10</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1087</spage><epage>1098</epage><pages>1087-1098</pages><issn>1523-0899</issn><eissn>1708-8208</eissn><abstract>Background
A main drawback of bone block graft surgery is the resorption occurring in early stages of healing. To our knowledge, there are no studies comparing outcomes of freeze‐dried bone allograft (FDBA) blocks with different architecture.
Purpose
The aim of this work was to investigate different factors that can affect graft resorption and to compare the resorption rates of two different types of allogeneic blocks, corticocancellous and cancellous.
Materials and Methods
A randomized clinical trial was designed. Twenty‐eight patients referred for onlay bone augmentation prior to implant placement were included in the study. Preoperative computerized tomography (CT) was taken for all patients. Patients received FDBA blocks of either cancellous or corticocancellous bone obtained from the iliac crest. After a 4‐month follow‐up, postoperative CT was taken. Then, another surgery was performed, with the purpose to place dental implants. The aforementioned groups were compared for bone resorption and implant outcome using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and repeated ANOVA measures, respectively. Demographic data, trabecular bone density, and graft sites were also analyzed.
Results
A total of 93 implants were placed in the augmented bone sites over 28 patients. A 100% survival rate was achieved during a mean follow‐up period of 24 months in both groups. Higher bone resorption rate was found with cancellous bone grafts (29.2% ± 2.6) compared with corticocancellous grafts (19.3% ± 2.3). Moreover, higher resorption rates in patients with lower bone density (<185 Hounsfield Units) (31.7% ± 3.1) and smokers (26.39% ± 2.3) were observed when compared with patients with higher bone density (>185 Hounsfield Units) (16.8% ± 2.1) and nonsmokers (22.1% ± 2.3), respectively.
Conclusion
Within the limitations of this study, these findings indicate that both corticocancellous and cancellous FDBA grafts constitute a clinical acceptable alternative for bone reconstruction, although cancellous grafts present higher resorption rates. Moreover, host factors such as patient's low bone density and smoking habits may also increase graft resorption rates.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>31419002</pmid><doi>10.1111/cid.12834</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6591-7256</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0546-8000</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1523-0899 |
| ispartof | Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2019-10, Vol.21 (5), p.1087-1098 |
| issn | 1523-0899 1708-8208 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2275250189 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Alveolar Ridge Augmentation Augmentation bone block allograft Bone density Bone grafts Bone implants Bone resorption Bone surgery Bone Transplantation Cancellous bone Clinical trials Computed tomography Covariance Demographics Dental Implantation, Endosseous Dental Implants Dental materials Dental prosthetics Dentistry graft resorption Grafting Grafts Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Humans Iliac crest Maxilla Patients PRGF randomized clinical trial Smoking Substitute bone Surgery Surgical implants Transplants & implants Treatment Outcome Variance analysis |
| title | Clinical and radiographic outcomes of allogeneic block grafts for maxillary lateral ridge augmentation: A randomized clinical trial |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T20%3A13%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinical%20and%20radiographic%20outcomes%20of%20allogeneic%20block%20grafts%20for%20maxillary%20lateral%20ridge%20augmentation:%20A%20randomized%20clinical%20trial&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20implant%20dentistry%20and%20related%20research&rft.au=G.%20F.%20Tresguerres,%20Francisco&rft.date=2019-10&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1087&rft.epage=1098&rft.pages=1087-1098&rft.issn=1523-0899&rft.eissn=1708-8208&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/cid.12834&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2313487552%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2313487552&rft_id=info:pmid/31419002&rfr_iscdi=true |