LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 22 , Issue 3
May/June 2007

Pages 359365


Morbidity of Mandibular Bone Harvesting: A Comparative Study

Gerry M. Raghoebar, DMD, MD, PhD / Leo Meijndert, DMD / Wouter W. I. Kalk, DMD, MD, PhD / Arjan Vissink DMD, MD, PhD


PMID: 17622001

Purpose: To assess the objective and subjective morbidity of mandibular bone harvesting. Materials and Methods: Forty-five patients who had been subjected to mandibular bone harvesting from the chin region (group 1, n = 15), the retromolar region (group 2, n = 15), or the retromolar region after removal of the third molar (group 3, n = 15) participated in this study. Complications, postoperative morbidity, and patient acceptance of the procedure were evaluated by assessing the medical records and performing standardized routine clinical and radiographic examinations up to 12 months after the augmentation procedure. In addition, the patients were asked to complete a questionnaire on the subjective complaints related to the procedure. Results: Analysis of the questionnaire revealed that there was no significant difference between patients of groups 1 and 2 regarding acceptance of the procedure (scores of 8.6 plusmn 1.1 and 8.5 plusmn 0.9 on a 10-point scale, respectively). Acceptance of the procedure was scored significantly higher by the patients of group 3 (9.3 plusmn 0.7; Student t test, P < .05). Six patients of group 1 and 2 patients of groups 2 and 3 reported subjective sensory disturbances related to the donor site. With the exception of 2 patients in group 1, these subjective complaints disappeared within 2 months after surgery. In the 2 patients (group 1) who reported a persistent discrete sensibility disorder in the symphyseal region after 12 months, this disturbance could not be confirmed objectively. Conclusion: Mandibular bone harvesting for reconstructing local alveolar defects is a well-accepted procedure with low objective and subjective morbidity. Amongst the procedures evaluated, harvesting bone from the retromolar region combined with removal of the third molar was best accepted by the patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:359365

Key words: autologous bone grafts, bone augmentation, endosseous implants, mandible, morbidity


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