LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 21 , Issue 5
September/October 2006

Pages 696710


The Efficacy of Various Bone Augmentation Procedures for Dental Implants: A Cochrane Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

Marco Esposito DDS, PhD / Maria Gabriella Grusovin, DDS / Paul Coulthard, BDS, MDS, PhD / Helen V. Worthington, CStat, PhD


PMID: 17066630

Purpose: To test (a) whether and when bone augmentation procedures are necessary and (b) which is the most effective augmentation technique for specific clinical indications. Trials were divided into 3 categories: (1) major vertical or horizontal bone augmentation (or both); (2) implants placed in extraction sockets; (3) fenestrated implants. Materials and Methods: An exhaustive search was conducted for all randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing different techniques and materials for augmenting bone for implant treatment reporting the outcome of implant therapy at least to abutment connection. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted on October 1, 2005. Results: Thirteen RCTs of 30 potentially eligible trials reporting the outcome of 332 patients were suitable for inclusion. Six trials evaluated techniques for vertical and/or horizontal bone augmentation. Four trials evaluated techniques of bone grafting for implants placed in extraction sockets, and 3 trials evaluated techniques to treat fenestrated implants. Conclusions: Major bone grafting procedures of extremely resorbed mandibles may not be justified. Bone substitutes may replace autogenous bone for sinus lift procedures of extremely atrophic sinuses. Both guided bone regeneration procedures and distraction osteogenesis can be used to augment bone vertically, but it is unclear which is the most efficient. It is unclear whether augmentation procedures are needed at immediate single implants placed in fresh extraction sockets; however, sites treated with barrier + Bio-Oss showed a higher position of the gingival margin than sites treated with barriers alone. More bone was regenerated around fenestrated implants with nonresorbable barriers than without barriers; however, it remains unclear whether such bone is of benefit to the patient. Bone morphogenetic proteins may enhance bone formation around implants grafted with Bio-Oss, but there was no reliable evidence supporting the efficacy of other active agents, such as platelet-rich plasma, in conjunction with implant treatment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:696710

Key words: bone augmentation, bone graft, bone substitutes, dental implants, randomized controlled clinical trial


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help