The role of pericranium grafts in the reduction of postoperative dehiscences and bone resorption after reconstruction of severely deficient edentulous ridges with autogenous onlay bone grafts

Abstract

The use of pericranium as an autogenous membrane for the coverage of onlay bone grafts seems to reduce the risk of soft tissue dehiscences after the reconstruction of atrophic edentulous ridges to reduce peri-implant bone resorption over time, while it seems to have no significant effect in reducing bone resorption in the reconstructed areas before implant placement.

Horizontal bone‐augmentation procedures in implant dentistry: prosthetically guided regeneration

“…The use of membranes and bone substitutes in association with bone graft seems to prevent the potential, partial, bone resorption of the graft during healing . In cases of larger defects, in which intra‐oral sites are unable to provide enough bone volume, extra‐oral sites, such as the calvarium and the pericranial periostium (pericranium) can be used to protect and prevent resorption of the graft . Tension‐free, primary wound closure is essential, as in all augmentation techniques (Fig.…”

Transcaruncular medial canthopexy with wire and miniplate revisited

“…1 A similar simplified method for medial canthopexia was reported 11 years ago in this very journal, by Wittkampf and Mourits. 2 Their technique uses a 2-0 metal wire, fixated to the canthal ligament by a double armoured stitch, pulling it distally using a Y-shaped miniplate.…”

“…When a mandibular graft is performed, the main complications encountered are a dehiscence of the wound and vertical resorption of the graft. 1 To avoid these complications, several techniques have been described, such as the sandwich technique, 2 pericranium grafts, 1 and calvarial grafts, 3 all of which have yielded acceptable results. Indeed, calvarial grafts have demonstrated less resorption than iliac crest grafts.…”

“…3 The type of grafting used has been shown to be important, but this does not exclude the benefit obtained using techniques such as those cited above. [1][2][3] It should be noted that Iturriaga and Ruiz 4 reported only maxillar grafting in their article, and do not report mandibullar grafting; it is important to remember that there is a known and acknowledged difference between maxillar and mandibular graft resorption.…”

Long‐term stability of autologous bone graft of intraoral origin after lateral sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant placement

“…Because the use of extraoral autologous bone grafts has been associated with a greater than average graft resorption, other possible harvesting sites emerged, like intraoral regions. 32 However, in a subsequent study, the same group reported that calvarial bone shows less resorption than ramus bone, while both displayed a significantly lower resorption than iliac crest bone grafts. The mandibular symphysis provides excellent ren.…”