Maxilla reconstruction with autogenous bone block grafts: computed tomography evaluation and implant survival in a 5-year retrospective study

Abstract

This retrospective study was performed to evaluate the bone thickness of the anterior maxillary region after reconstruction with autogenous bone blocks at 6 months and 5 years after surgery using computed tomography (CT) and to determine the implant survival rate. Eleven patients with a horizontal bone deficiency were treated with reconstructive procedures and implant placement. CT measurements were obtained before surgery (T0) and at 6 months (T1) and 5 years (T2) after surgery. The values were analysed statistically (analysis of variance and Tukey's test; P<0.05). Implant survival was evaluated at follow-up. The mean width of the lower region of the ridge (±standard deviation, in millimetres) was 3.8±1.6 at T0, 7.0±1.6 at T1, and 6.5±1.0 at T2; the mean width of the upper region of the ridge was 5.7±2.3 at T0, 8.3±2.2 at T1, and 7.3±1.6 at T2. The mean total thickness of the ridge was 4.7mm at T0, 7.6mm at T1, and 6.9mm at T2; the average increase in horizontal thickness was 2.9mm at T1 and 2.2mm at T2. A statistically significant difference was observed in the mean width of the lower portion at T1 and T2 compared to the width at T0. The implant survival rate was 94.1%. This technique demonstrated high predictability for implant survival, with a reduction in the graft bone during the follow-up period.

Clinical and patient‐reported outcomes of implants placed in autogenous bone grafts and implants placed in native bone: A case–control study with a follow‐up of 5–16 years

“…Scientific evidence on dental implants placed in autogenous bone blocks and long-term follow-up data is scarce. According to clinical studies with 5-year, 10-year and 12-year follow-up examinations, the survival rate of implants placed in primarily augmented autogenous bone is high and similar to the present investigation (Keller, Tolman, & Eckert, 1999) (Gulinelli et al, 2017) (Chappuis, Cavusoglu, Buser, & Arx, 2017). Moreover, the survival rates are high and comparable to implants placed in native bone (Buser et al, 2002;Levin, Nitzan, & Schwartz-Arad, 2007), which is, again, in line with the present study.…”

Cone beam computed tomography evaluation of staged lateral ridge augmentation using platelet‐rich fibrin or resorbable collagen membranes in a randomized controlled clinical trial

“…Furthermore, there was no overall significant difference between the PRF group and the control group regarding bone resorption rate. The outcome of bone volume changes after autogenous bone grafting used for horizontal ridge augmentation has previously been addressed in the literature, with different assessment methods (Gulinelli et al, ). The change over time of the width of the residual ridge was measured with a pair of calipers in one study (von Arx & Buser, ) using the exact same surgical procedure as in the control group of the present study.…”

“…The outcome of bone volume changes after autogenous bone grafting used for horizontal ridge augmentation has previously been addressed in the literature, with different assessment methods (Gulinelli et al, 2017). The change over time of the width of the residual ridge…”

Horizontal ridge reconstruction of the anterior maxilla using customized allogeneic bone blocks with a minimally invasive technique - a case series

“…Autogenous bone has always been considered the material of choice for horizontal regeneration of the anterior maxilla, through the placement of onlays bone blocks harvested in intra- or extra-oral sites [ 4 – 6 ]; the placement and subsequent integration of these onlays blocks is prerequisite for the correct positioning of dental implants [ 4 – 6 ]. However, the use of autogenous bone has drawbacks, such as limited availability and the need to be harvested from other anatomical sites, with a risk of morbidity at donor site and resorption at recipient site [ 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 ].…”