Abstract
| Originalsprog | Engelsk |
|---|---|
| Tidsskrift | International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants |
| Vol/bind | 24 Suppl |
| Sider (fra-til) | 218-36 |
| Antal sider | 18 |
| ISSN | 0882-2786 |
| Status | Udgivet - 2009 |
Bibliografisk note
Keywords: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Substitutes; Bone Transplantation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal; Humans; Maxillary Sinus; Oral Surgical Procedures, PreprostheticCitationsformater
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS
I: International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, Bind 24 Suppl, 2009, s. 218-36.
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Review › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Bone augmentation procedures in localized defects in the alveolar ridge: clinical results with different bone grafts and bone-substitute materials
AU - Jensen, Simon Storgård
AU - Terheyden, Hendrik
N1 - Keywords: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Substitutes; Bone Transplantation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal; Humans; Maxillary Sinus; Oral Surgical Procedures, Preprosthetic
PY - 2009
Y1 - 2009
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
M3 - Review
C2 - 19885447
SN - 0882-2786
VL - 24 Suppl
SP - 218
EP - 236
JO - International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
JF - International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
ER -