The aim of this study was to analyse the clinical outcome of two different surgical methods for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges before implant installation: guided bone regeneration with e-PTFE membranes and autologous bone chips or grafting of autologous bone blocks without e-PTFE membranes. Thirty partially edentulous patients, presenting insufficient bone width (less than 4 mm) in the edentulous sites for installation of screw-type titanium implants, were selected and assigned to two different treatment modalities. Fifteen patients (group 1) were treated by means of guided bone regeneration with e-PTFE membranes supported by stainless steel screws and autologous bone chips taken from intraoral sites. Fifteen patients (group 2) were treated by means of autologous bone blocks taken from intraoral or extraoral sites (anterior iliac crest and calvaria) and stabilized with titanium microscrews. Six to 8 months later, during re-entry for implant insertion, the gain of ridge width obtained was measured. In group 1 the average amount of bone gain was 2.7 mm, whereas in group 2 the value was 4.0 mm. Five to 6 months after implant placement prosthetic rehabilitation was started. The mean follow-up after prosthetic load has been 22.4 months. Success rates of implants according to Albrektsson criteria has been 93.3% in group 1, and 90.9% in group 2. Although a statistical comparison between the two treatment modalities may not be feasible, due to the bias resulting from the choice of treatment by the clinician and from the differences in donor sites and defect extension, some considerations can be made: 1) both methods are a reliable means for the correction of narrow edentulous ridges; 2) both techniques necessitate overcorrection of the defect because of interposition of connective tissue beneath the membrane in the first group and bone resorption in the second one; 3) the use of semipermeable barriers increases the costs of the surgical procedure, as compared to bone grafting without membranes; 4) guided bone regeneration presents a higher risk of infection because of wound dehiscence and membrane exposure. Therefore, in case of wide edentulous areas, reconstruction of narrow ridges should be performed with bone blocks without membranes.
A comparative study between guided bone regeneration and autologous bone blocks for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges
ABATI , SILVIO;
1997-01-01
Abstract
The aim of this study was to analyse the clinical outcome of two different surgical methods for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges before implant installation: guided bone regeneration with e-PTFE membranes and autologous bone chips or grafting of autologous bone blocks without e-PTFE membranes. Thirty partially edentulous patients, presenting insufficient bone width (less than 4 mm) in the edentulous sites for installation of screw-type titanium implants, were selected and assigned to two different treatment modalities. Fifteen patients (group 1) were treated by means of guided bone regeneration with e-PTFE membranes supported by stainless steel screws and autologous bone chips taken from intraoral sites. Fifteen patients (group 2) were treated by means of autologous bone blocks taken from intraoral or extraoral sites (anterior iliac crest and calvaria) and stabilized with titanium microscrews. Six to 8 months later, during re-entry for implant insertion, the gain of ridge width obtained was measured. In group 1 the average amount of bone gain was 2.7 mm, whereas in group 2 the value was 4.0 mm. Five to 6 months after implant placement prosthetic rehabilitation was started. The mean follow-up after prosthetic load has been 22.4 months. Success rates of implants according to Albrektsson criteria has been 93.3% in group 1, and 90.9% in group 2. Although a statistical comparison between the two treatment modalities may not be feasible, due to the bias resulting from the choice of treatment by the clinician and from the differences in donor sites and defect extension, some considerations can be made: 1) both methods are a reliable means for the correction of narrow edentulous ridges; 2) both techniques necessitate overcorrection of the defect because of interposition of connective tissue beneath the membrane in the first group and bone resorption in the second one; 3) the use of semipermeable barriers increases the costs of the surgical procedure, as compared to bone grafting without membranes; 4) guided bone regeneration presents a higher risk of infection because of wound dehiscence and membrane exposure. Therefore, in case of wide edentulous areas, reconstruction of narrow ridges should be performed with bone blocks without membranes.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
