Clinical, histological and histomorphometric evaluation of the healing of mandibular ramus bone block grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation before implant placement

Acocella, Alessandro; Bertolai, Roberto; Colafranceschi, M; Sacco, R.

doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2009.07.004

Cited by 93 publications

(112 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…3 However, revascularization in mandibular block grafts is slow. 28,29 A systematic review by Wallace et al 30 also found block grafting resulted in a lower implant survival rate (83.3%) than particulate grafts (92.3%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of bone grafts placed within an oral and maxillofacial training programme for implant rehabilitation

Kaing

Grubor

Chandu

2011

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study aimed to review the survival of bone grafting procedures, performed by surgical trainees and assess factors affecting survival of these bone grafts as an adjunct to implant rehabilitation. Methods: Data were collected from patients between 2003 and 2009 receiving bone grafting. Graft failure was defined as any complete or partial graft loss, graft which had to be removed or regrafted, or was unable to have an implant placed. Implant survival rates were not assessed in this study. Results: Seventy-five patients received 86 bone grafts over a period of 7 years. Overall graft survival was 87.3% with 7 complete graft failures (8.1%) and 3 partial graft failures (4.6%). All failed grafts were of the block graft type, predominately in the anterior maxilla. The main reason for failure was secondary infection. Other complications occurred in about 27% of patients. Factors significantly increasing the risk of graft failure included use of bone block augmentation (p = 0.001), mixed autogenous ⁄ bone substitute grafts (p = 0.007) and diabetes mellitus (p = 0.006). Smoking was not found to affect graft survival. Conclusions: Good results were found in a series of patients treated in an oral and maxillofacial training programme. Care should be taken in regards to planning block grafts in diabetic patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of bone grafts placed within an oral and maxillofacial training programme for implant rehabilitation

Kaing

Grubor

Chandu

2011

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accordingly, oral rehabilitation with dental implants is seen as a valid procedure given that it is predictable, long lasting and effective for the treatment of single-unit, partially or totally edentulous patients. However, certain clinical situations often emerge which make this type of rehabilitation very challenging, requiring more complex surgical techniques such as bone grafting [9][10][11][12].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Considerations on the Use of Lumina-Porous? Biomaterial in Maxillary Sinus Floor

Goulart¹

2015

IJBMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Maxillary sinus floor augmentation procedure, aka sinus floor lift surgery, stand out within the universe of bone reconstruction given that the maxillary sinus is a closed cavity with favorable nutrition, which enables the use of biomaterials alone. Therefore, this study aimed to report and discuss the technical and biological peculiarities of Lumina-Porous® biomaterial alone in the maxillary sinus by describing a sinus lift case which presented with little remaining bone. After the graft incorporation period two implants were installed in the grafted area to provide proper patient rehabilitation.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the block graft itself, which is harvested from a donor site, does not always exhibit shape and/or characteristics that favor this contact. 2,7,10 The existence of gaps between the surface of the graft and the receptor site hinders nutrition of the block graft and favors resorption. It also hinders revascularization and favors the invasion of soft tissue in the area, which, in turn, prevents the implant from adapting to the receptor site and leads the procedure to failure (Fig 1).…”

Section: Clinical Considerations Re-lated To Bone Grafting and Dentalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3,4,5 Thus, bone graft prior to dental implant placement is considered a feasible option that, when well executed, is able to readjust atrophic ridges, thereby providing implant placement with long-term stability in these regions. 2,[6][7][8][9][10] Immediate implant placement aims at optimizing results and promoting longterm stability. Importantly, it has become more and more popular in recent years.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…11,12 ,13 However, achieving satisfactory outcomes as a result of bone grafting or immediate implant placement remains a challenge for implantodontists, particularly in more complex cases or when unpredictable defects are involved. 8,10,[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Thus, further studies are required to assist professionals in their search for better clinical results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical considerations for optimizing results in bone grafting: part II

Nóia¹,

Sá²,

Pinto³

et al. 2015

Dental Press Implantol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Clinical, histological and histomorphometric evaluation of the healing of mandibular ramus bone block grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation before implant placement

Cited by 93 publications

References 32 publications

Assessment of bone grafts placed within an oral and maxillofacial training programme for implant rehabilitation

Assessment of bone grafts placed within an oral and maxillofacial training programme for implant rehabilitation

Considerations on the Use of Lumina-Porous? Biomaterial in Maxillary Sinus Floor

Clinical considerations for optimizing results in bone grafting: part II

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About