Comparison of Intraoral Harvest Sites for Corticocancellous Bone Grafts

Three-dimensional evaluation of the different donor sites of the mandible for autologous bone grafts

“…Significant differences were noted in the literature compared to our results when making a direct comparison of the amount of intraoral harvestable bone. Our investigations show more available bone, or larger dimensions for every graft, than in the study of Yates et al [14]; and particularly in relation to the ramus, depending on the status (dentate/edentulous). For the graft of the ascending ramus, Yates et al [14] found a volume of 2.02 ml, which is similar to our results for the edentulous mandible, with an average volume of 2,360.93± 917.1 mm 3 (2.36 ml).…”

“…For the ramus, Güngörmüş et al [16] presented an average surface area of 495.13±79.20 mm 2 and a possible graft volume of 2.36±0.76 ml, whereas Montazem et al [15] examined the mandibular symphysis of 16 cadavers and found an average bone volume of 9.55 ml ( range of 3.25 to 6.50 ml), and an average size of the harvested corticocancellous block from the ascending ramus measuring about 20.9×9.9×6.9 mm. Therefore, a comparison of the results of Yates et al [14] with the results of Güngörmüş et al [16] and Montazem et al [15] shows that Yates et al present significantly lower values, although they concluded that the ramus provided the greatest volume of bone, as well as the largest amount of cortical bone. In addition, the ramus was associated with significantly lower donor morbidity compared with the symphysis, (the next largest bone graft with a larger amount of cancellous bone).…”

“…2 a-c 3D Model of the dentate mandible with the symphysis, coronoid process, and ascending ramus as harvest regions bone grafts in relation to the harvest area and the amount of bone supply [15][16][17][21][22][23][24][25]. The largest study was based on 59 cadavers, and was published by Yates et al [14]. This was the first investigation to quantify and compare the amount of bone that it was possible to harvest from the mandibular symphysis, ascending ramus/body, coronoid process, and the zygomatic-maxillary buttress, using a within-subject study design.…”

“…The linear dimensions (width, thickness, and height, in mm), surface (mm 2 ), volume (mm 3 ), and density (HU) of the virtual grafts were then measured using Pro Plan 3.0 software. To compare our results, the osteotomies were performed based on the studies by Yates et al [14]: …”

“…It is of note that most studies have described the amount of available bone in relation to the surface area of the bone. Only a few studies have reported the available volume, with no distinction made between the dentate and edentulous jaws [13][14][15][16][17].…”