Calvarial Bone Harvest and Grafting Techniques for Maxillary and Mandibular Implant Surgery

Immediate loading of dental implants placed in severely resorbed edentulous mandibles reconstructed with autogenous calvarial grafts

“…Conversely, the calvarium has demonstrated to be a very reliable source, due to its dense cortical bone and to the very limited resorption over the years, as demonstrated by this study and other publications (Zins & Withaker 1983;Harsha et al 1986;Hardesty & Marsh 1990;Donovan et al 1994;Orsini et al 2003;Iizuka et al 2004).…”

“…Moreover, harversting bone from the calvarium has demonstrated a significantly lower postoperative morbidity (Hardesty & Marsh 1990;Donovan et al 1994;Orsini et al 2003), as compared with the ilium, where patients almost always report postoperative pain during dehambulation (Kahnberg et al 1989;Keller 1995;Lundgren et al 1997;van Steenberghe et al 1997;Nystrom et al 2004).…”

Clinical Similarities and Histological Diversity Comparing Fresh Frozen Onlay Bone Blocks Allografts and Autografts in Human Maxillary Reconstruction

“…[1][2][3] Bone volume is normally diminished by tooth loss, trauma, periodontal disease, and other pathologies, 4,5 and the most predictable process to rehabilitate patient's bone architecture is bone grafting, before implants placement. [6][7][8] The gold standard for bone grafting is autogenous (AT) bone, 9,10 harvested from extra- [11][12][13][14] or intra-oral [15][16][17] donor sites. AT bone graft is accepted as a highly predictable and effective method, without immunologic impediments.…”

“…The gold standard for bone grafting is autogenous (AT) bone, 9,10 harvested from extra‐ 11–14 or intra‐oral 15–17 donor sites. AT bone graft is accepted as a highly predictable and effective method, without immunologic impediments 9,18–20 .…”

Fate of autologous and fresh‐frozen allogeneic block bone grafts used for ridge augmentation. A CBCT‐based analysis

“…Autologous (AT) bone grafting remains the most predictable and best documented method – considered the gold standard – for bone augmentation (Keller & Triplett ; Donovan et al. ; Misch & Misch ; Capelli ; Nowzari & Aalam ). The technique, however, has disadvantages such as donor site morbidity, postsurgical pain, nerve and soft‐tissue injuries, increased operative time and deficiencies in the quality and quantity of available bone (Leonetti & Koup ; Waasdorp & Reynolds ).…”