Horizontal Bone Reconstruction on sites with different amounts of native bone: a retrospective study

10Citations
Citations of this article
76Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The lack of guidelines for bone augmentation procedures might compromise decision making in implantology. The objective of this study was to perform a retrospective study to verify the outcomes of horizontal bone reconstruction in implant dentistry with different types of materials and amounts of native bone in the recipient bed to allow for a new guideline for horizontal bone reconstruction. One hundred preoperative CT scans were retrospectively evaluated and categorized in accordance to horizontal bone defects as presence (Group P) or absence (Group A) of cancellous bone in the recipient bed. Different approaches were used to treat the edentulous ridge and the outcomes were defined either as satisfactory or unsatisfactory regarding the possibility of implant placement. The percentage distribution of the patients according to the presence or absence of cancellous bone was 92% for Group P and 8% for Group A. In Group P, 98% of the patients had satisfactory outcomes, and the use of autografts had 100% of satisfactory outcomes in this group. In Group A, 37.5% of the patients had satisfactory outcomes, and the use of autografts also yielded 100% of satisfactory outcomes. The use of allografts and xenografts in Group A had 0% and 33.3% of satisfactory outcomes, respectively. Therefore, it seems reasonable to speculate that the presence of cancellous bone might be predictive and predictable when the decision includes bone substitutes. In cases of absence of cancellous bone in the recipient bed, the use of a vitalized graft seems to be mandatory.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Pelegrine, A. A., Romito, G., Villar, C. C., de Macedo, L. G. S., Teixeira, M. L., Aloise, A. C., & Moy, P. K. (2018). Horizontal Bone Reconstruction on sites with different amounts of native bone: a retrospective study. Brazilian Oral Research, 32, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0021

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free