Vertical bone augmentation with dental implant placement: efficacy and complications associated with 2 different techniques. A retrospective cohort study.

675
SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006 Jul-Aug;21(4):600-6.

Vertical bone augmentation with dental implant placement: efficacy and complications associated with 2 different techniques. A retrospective cohort study.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To compare retrospectively the efficacy of and complications associated with 2 different techniques for vertical bone augmentation at implant placement: autogenous particulated bone grafts covered either by nonresorbable titanium-reinforced e-PTFE barriers or by resorbable collagen barriers supported by osteosynthesis plates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Nineteen partially edentulous patients were consecutively treated: 11 patients had 18 implants treated for vertical bone augmentation with nonresorbable barriers, whereas 8 patients had 11 implants treated with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis plates. Two independent assessors evaluated the amount of tissue regenerated and complications based on photographs and/or radiographs.

RESULTS:

No implants failed. In the group treated with nonresorbable barriers, complete bone regeneration was obtained for 12 of 18 implants. More than 50% of the planned regeneration was obtained for the remaining 6 implants. One patient had a dehiscence with suppuration that required an additional surgical intervention to remove the barrier. For resorbable barriers, complete regeneration was obtained for 10 of 11 implants. Dehiscences occurred in 2 patients. In 1 case no treatment was necessary. The other patient was treated with applications of chlorhexidine gel; more than 50% of the desired bone regeneration was obtained.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

No statistically significant differences for the amount of regenerated tissue and complications were observed between the 2 techniques; however, the power of the study was too low to detect a difference, if any. Randomized clinical trials with a sufficient number of patients are needed to determine which could be the most effective technique for vertical ridge augmentation.

PMID: 16955612 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
Previous Post
Treatment of intrabony defects with enamel matrix proteins or barrier membranes: results from a multicenter practice-based clinical trial.
Next Post
Horizontal and vertical ridge augmentation: a novel approach using osteosynthesis microplates, bone grafts, and resorbable barriers.

Related posts

No results found.
Menu