Purpose A variety of techniques and materials have been used to establish the structural base of osseous tissue for supporting dental implants. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the most successful technique(s) to provide the necessary alveolar bone to place a dental implant and support long-term survival. Methods A systematic online review of a main database and manual search of relevant articles from refereed journals were performed between 1980 and 2005. Updates and additions were made from September 2004 to May 2005. The hard tissue augmentation techniques were separated into 2 anatomic sites, the maxillary sinus and alveolar ridge. Within the alveolar ridge augmentation technique, different surgical approaches were identified and categorized, including guided bone regeneration (GBR), onlay/veneer grafting (OVG), combinations of onlay, veneer, interpositional inlay grafting (COG), distraction osteogenesis (DO), ridge splitting (RS), free and vascularized autografts for discontinuity defects (DD), mandibular interpositional grafting (MI), and socket preservation (SP). All identified articles were evaluated and screened by 2 independent reviewers to meet strict inclusion criteria. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were further evaluated for data extraction. The initial search identified a total of 526 articles from the electronic database and manual search. Of these, 335 articles met the inclusion criteria after a review of the titles and abstracts. From the 335 articles, further review of the full text of the articles produced 90 articles that provided sufficient data for extraction and analysis. Results For the maxillary sinus grafting (SG) technique, the results showed a total of 5,128 implants placed, with follow-up times ranging from 12 to 102 months. Implant survival was 92% for implants placed into autogenous and autogenous/composite grafts, 93.3% for implants placed into allogeneic/nonautogenous composite grafts, 81% for implants placed into alloplast and alloplast/xenograft materials, and 95.6% for implants placed into xenograft materials alone. For alveolar ridge augmentation, a total of 2,620 implants were placed, with follow-up ranging from 5 to 74 months. The implant survival rate was 95.5% for GBR, 90.4% for OVG, 94.7% for DO, and 83.8% for COG. Other techniques, such as DD, RS, SP, and MI, were difficult to analyze because of the small sample size and data heterogeneity within and across studies. Conclusions The maxillary sinus augmentation procedure has been well documented, and the long-term clinical success/survival (> 5 years) of implants placed, regardless of graft material(s) used, compares favorably to implants placed conventionally, with no grafting procedure, as reported in other systematic reviews. Alveolar ridge augmentation techniques do not have detailed documentation or long-term follow-up studies, with the exception of GBR. However, studies that met the inclusion criteria seemed to be comparable and yielded favorable results in supporting dental implants. The alveolar ridge augmentation procedures may be more technique- and operator-experience-sensitive, and implant survival may be a function of residual bone supporting the dental implant rather than grafted bone. More in-depth, long-term, multicenter studies are required to provide further insight into augmentation procedures to support dental implant survival.

Which hard tissue augmentation techniques are the most successful in furnishing bony support for implant placement

Background: The advent of osseointegration and advances in biomaterials and techniques have contributed to increased application of dental implants in the restoration of partial and completely edentulous patients. Often, in these patients, soft and hard tissue defects result from a variety of causes, such as infection, trauma, and tooth loss. These create an anatomically less favorable foundation for ideal implant placement. For prosthetic-driven dental implant therapy, reconstruction of the alveolar bone through a variety of regenerative surgical procedures has become predictable; it may be necessary prior to implant placement or simultaneously at the time of implant surgery to provide a restoration with a good long-term prognosis. Regenerative procedures are used for socket preservation, sinus augmentation, and horizontal and vertical ridge augmentation.Methods: A broad overview of the published findings in the English literature related to various bone augmentation techniques is outlined. A comprehensi...

Bone augmentation techniques.

Purpose The aim of this article was to review the current literature with regard to survival and success rates, along with the clinical procedures and outcomes associated with immediate and delayed implant placement Materials and methods A MEDLINE search was conducted of studies published between 1990 and June 2003 Randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and case reports with a minimum of 10 cases were included Studies reporting on success and survival rates were required to have follow-up periods of at least 12 months Results Thirty-one articles were identified Most were short-term reports and were not randomized with respect to timing of placement and augmentation methods used All studies reported implant survival data; there were no reports on clinical success Peri-implant defects had a high potential for healing by regeneration of bone, irrespective of healing protocol and bone augmentation method Sites with horizontal defects (HD) of 2 mm or less healed by spontaneous bone fill when implants with rough surfaces were used In the presence of HDs larger than 2 mm, or when socket walls were damaged, concomitant augmentation procedures with barrier membranes and bone grafts were required Delayed implant placement allowed for resolution of local infection and an increase in the area and volume of soft tissue for flap adaptation However, these advantages were diminished by simultaneous buccolingual ridge resorption and increased requirements for tissue augmentation Discussion Immediate and delayed immediate implants appear to be predictable treatment modalities, with survival rates comparable to implants in healed ridges Relatively few long-term studies were found Successful clinical outcomes in terms of bone fill of the peri-implant defect were well established However, there was a paucity of data on long-term success as measured by peri-implant tissue health, prosthesis stability, and esthetic outcomes Conclusions Short-term survival rates and clinical outcomes of immediate and delayed implants were similar and were comparable to those of implants placed in healed alveolar ridges

Immediate or early placement of implants following tooth extraction: review of biologic basis, clinical procedures, and outcomes.

Purpose The objective of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of different grafting protocols for the augmentation of localized alveolar ridge defects. Materials and methods A MEDLINE search and an additional hand search of selected journals were performed to identify all levels of clinical evidence except expert opinions. Any publication written in English and including 10 or more patients with at least 12 months of follow-up after loading of the implants was eligible for this review. The results were categorized according to the presenting defect type: (1) dehiscence and fenestration-type defects, (2) horizontal ridge augmentations, (3) vertical ridge augmentations, and (4) maxillary sinus floor elevations using the lateral window technique or transalveolar approach. The review focused on: (1) the outcome of the individual grafting protocols and (2) survival rates of implants placed in the augmented bone. Results and conclusion Based on 2,006 abstracts, 424 full-text articles were evaluated, of which 108 were included. Eleven studies were randomized controlled clinical trials. The majority were prospective or retrospective studies including a limited number of patients and short observation periods. The heterogeneity of the available data did not allow identifying one superior grafting protocol for any of the osseous defect types under investigation. However, a series of grafting materials can be considered well-documented for different indications based on this review. There is a high level of evidence (level A to B) to support that survival rates of implants placed in augmented bone are comparable to rates of implants placed in pristine bone.

Bone augmentation procedures in localized defects in the alveolar ridge: clinical results with different bone grafts and bone-substitute materials.

Collagen materials have been utilized in medicine and dentistry because of their proven biocompatability and capability of promoting wound healing. For guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedures, collagen membranes have been shown to be comparable to non-absorbable membranes with regard to probing depth reduction, clinical attachment gain, and percent of bone fill. Although these membranes are absorbable, collagen membranes have been demonstrated to prevent epithelial down-growth along the root surfaces during the early phase of wound healing. The use of grafting material in combination with collagen membranes seems to improve clinical outcomes for furcation, but not intrabony, defects when compared to the use of membranes alone. Recently, collagen materials have also been applied in guided bone regeneration (GBR) and root coverage procedures with comparable success rates to non-absorbable expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membranes and conventional subepithelial connective tissue grafts, respectively. Long-term clinical trials are still needed to further evaluate the benefits of collagen membranes in periodontal and peri-implant defects. This article will review the rationale for each indication and its related literature, both in vitro and in vivo studies. The properties that make collagen membranes attractive for use in regenerative therapy will be addressed. In addition, varieties of cross-linking techniques utilized to retard the degradation rate of collagen membranes will be discussed.

/pdf/collagen-membranes-a-review-2c6m3jmbka.pdf

Collagen Membranes: A Review

The purpose of this clinical investigation was to compare the new resorbable collagen membrane, Bio-Gide, to the conventional expanded polytetrafluoroethylene material (Gore-Tex) for guided bone regeneration in situations involving exposed implant surfaces. Over a 2-year period, 25 split-mouth patients were treated randomly: one defect site was treated with Bio-Gide and the other defect site with Gore-Tex; all 84 defects were filled with Bio-Oss and covered with the respective membrane. The defect types, their dimensions, and their morphology were measured in detail initially and at re-entry to allow for calculation of the exposed implant surface. Changes in defect surface for both types of membranes were statistically significant (P .94) could be detected between the two membranes. The mean average percentage of bone fill was 92% for Bio-Gide and 78% for Gore-Tex sites. In the latter group, 44% wound dehiscences and/or premature membrane removal occurred. The resorbable membrane, Bio-Gide, in combination with a bone graft, can be a useful alternative to the well-established expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membranes.

R W Naef

Papers

Resorbable versus nonresorbable membranes in combination with Bio-Oss for guided bone regeneration.