Patient experience following iliac crest-derived alveolar bone grafting and implant placement

Abstract

Background: The objective of this study was to assess patient-reported outcomes such as satisfaction and quality of life after advanced alveolar bone augmentation with anterior iliac crest grafting and implant treatment in orally compromised patients. Methods: This cross-sectional retrospective cohort study included 59 patients (29 women and 30 men) with major functional problems, who underwent advanced alveolar augmentation with autologous iliac bone grafts during a 10-year period (2002-2012). The self-administered questionnaire included 36 validated questions related to (1) demographics, (2) perceived general and oral health, (3) donor site and hospitalization, (4) status of implants and/or prosthesis, and (5) oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Results: Questionnaires were completed by 44 patients: 24 women and 20 men (response rate, 74.6%). Most patients reported good tolerance of the operative iliac bone harvesting (85%) and implant (90%) procedures. Postoperative pain at the donor site was reported by 38%, lasting 18.1 ± 16.1 days. An average of 4.3 ± 3.5 days of hospitalization and 20.2 ± 18.5 days of sick leave was reported. The overall satisfaction with prosthetic reconstruction was 90.5%. OHRQoL was reported with a mean Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) score of 8.4. Conclusion: Favorable OHRQoL and satisfaction were reported after advanced reconstruction of alveolar ridges with iliac crest-derived grafting and implants in severely compromised patients. However, this treatment requires substantial resources including hospitalization and sick leave.

Retrospective Evaluation of Implants Placed in Iliac Crest Autografts and Pristine Bone

“…The OHRQoL scores reported here were comparable to those reported by others following iliac crest augmentation [ 25 , 48 ]. A mean OHIP score of 8.4 has been reported after 7.8 years following iliac-crest harvesting [ 25 ].…”

“…The OHRQoL scores reported here were comparable to those reported by others following iliac crest augmentation [ 25 , 48 ]. A mean OHIP score of 8.4 has been reported after 7.8 years following iliac-crest harvesting [ 25 ]. In the present study, patients of the augmentation group exhibited a slightly higher OHIP score compared to the control after several years of the implant in function, which cannot be explained by a previous donor site morbidity.…”

“…These patients demonstrated a lower health-related QoL compared to intra-oral donor sites immediately after graft harvesting [ 24 ]. A favorable outcome of OHRQoL has been indicated after a mean of 8 years following iliac-bone harvesting [ 25 ]. OHIP might thus be considered suitable to compare the OHRQoL after prosthetic rehabilitation of implants placed in the augmented and pristine bone.…”

Patient’s perception of recovery after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone graft compared with composite grafts: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial

“…MSFA with autogenous bone graft used alone or in combination with different ratios of bone substitutes generates more newly formed bone, higher bone-toimplant contact, and earlier bone formation compared with the use of a bone substitute alone [13,[29][30][31]. However, harvesting of extraoral and intraoral autogenous bone graft negatively influences postsurgical OHRQoL due to increased pain, impaired eating and speaking ability, sleep impairment, limitation in daily routine, and sick leave [12,[32][33][34]. Patient's perception of recovery is therefore strongly associated with the surgical procedure, absence of pain, rapidly recovery of oral function and return to normal lifestyle.…”

Patients’ Perspectives of Grafting Materials in Implant Dentistry

“…[ 24 ] Positive influences on OHRQoL and satisfaction were reported after advanced reconstruction with iliac crest-derived grafts in orally compromised patients with subsequent placement with implants. [ 25 ] Allogenic grafts were also acceptable; however, they were in agreement with the patient’s chosen allograft bone material to avoid donor site morbidity. [ 26 ]…”