Search

Objectives: The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to test the 0-hypothesis of no difference in implant treatment outcome after horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation with xenogenic block compared with autogenous bone block. Material and Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals until 25th of January 2022. Comparative and non-comparative studies evaluating horizontal alveolar ridge augmentations with xenogenic blocks were included. Quality and risk of bias were evaluated by Cochrane Collaboration's revised tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: Meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in implant survival rate after more than 6 months of functional implant loading (P = 0.71), no difference in alveolar ridge width (P = 0.07) or gain of alveolar ridge width at reentry (P = 0.13). Non-comparative studies revealed moderate to high short-term implant survival rate and gain in alveolar ridge width, however, complications including dehiscences, graft exposure and graft failure were observed in several studies. Conclusions: No significant difference could be identified in short-term implant treatment outcome following horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation using xenogenic block compared with autogenous bone block with the limited data available. A high incidence of healing complications and implant failures necessitates further investigation, as well as long-term results on implant survival rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To test the hypothesis of no difference in implant treatment outcome following lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with autogenous bone block graft with or without barrier membrane coverage. Material and Methods: PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase and Cochrane library search in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals was conducted. Human studies published in English until the 8th of February 2021 were included. Randomised controlled trials with an observation period longer than three months were included. Survival of implants and suprastructures were considered as primary outcomes measures, whereas peri-implant marginal bone loss, dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge, bone regeneration, patient-reported outcome measures, biological and mechanical complications were secondary outcome measures, as evaluated by descriptive statistics and meta-analysis including 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Electronic search and hand-searching resulted in 411 entries. Five randomised controlled trials characterised by low or high risk of bias fulfilled inclusion criteria. No statistically significant difference between the two treatment modalities was observed in any of the outcome measures. However, barrier membrane coverage was associated with a non-significant gain in alveolar ridge width of 0.5 mm (95% CI = -0.1 to 1.1) and diminished resorption of -0.9 mm (95% CI = -2.4 to 0.7) compared with no barrier membrane coverage. Conclusions: Comparable implant treatment outcomes were revealed following lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with autogenous bone block graft alone with or without barrier membrane coverage. However, postoperative dimensional changes of the augmented seems to be diminished with the use of barrier membrane coverage as evaluated by two-dimensional linear measurements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Test the hypothesis of no difference in the volumetric stability of the grafting material following maxillary sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone graft compared with composite grafting material or bone substitute alone applying the lateral window technique. Material and Methods: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane library and hand-search of relevant journals were conducted. Human studies published in English until the 9th of October 2020 were included. Outcome measures included three-dimensional volumetric changes of the grafting material and potential predictive parameters. Volumetric changes were evaluated by descriptive statistics and meta-analysis including 95% confidence interval. Results: Electronic search and hand-searching resulted in 102 entries. Four randomized controlled trials with unclear risk of bias fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The volumetric stability of the grafting material was significantly improved by mixing autogenous bone graft with a non-resorbable xenograft compared with autogenous bone graft. Meta-analyses assessing absolute and relative volumetric changes demonstrated no significant differences between autogenous bone graft compared with allogeneic bone graft, synthetic biomaterials combined with autogenous bone graft or used alone. Association between volumetric changes of the grafting material and potential predictive parameters were not assessed in the included studies. Conclusions: Volumetric reduction of the augmented area seems inevitable following maxillary sinus floor augmentation regardless of the grafting material. The volumetric stability of autogenous bone graft is improved with addition of xenograft compared with autogenous bone graft. However, conclusions drawn from this systematic review should be interpreted with caution since only four studies using three-dimensional radiographic measurements were included. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objective of present systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in histomorphometric outcome after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone graft alone compared with alternate grafting materials applying the lateral window technique. Material and Methods: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane library search in combination with hand-search of relevant journals were conducted. Human studies published in English until the 25th of March, 2020 were included. Histomorphometric outcomes were evaluated by descriptive statistics and meta-analysis including 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Electronic search and hand-searching resulted in 1902 entries. Sixteen randomized controlled trials with unclear risk of bias fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Descriptive statistics showed comparable or improved histomorphometric outcomes with autogenous bone graft. Meta-analysis revealed a mean difference of -7.1% (CI = -11.0 to -3.2) indicating a significant higher amount of bone after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone graft compared with alternate grafting materials. Subgroup analysis demonstrated a non-significantly differences of -3.7% (CI = -10.9 to 3.4), -11.5% (CI = -25.9 to 2.8), 2.2% (CI = -16.9 to 21.3), and -4.6% (CI = -14.4 to 5.2), when autogenous bone graft was compared with allogeneic bone graft, xenograft, composite grafting materials involving xenograft or synthetic biomaterial mixed with autogenous bone graft, respectively. Conclusions: Maxillary sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone graft seems to facilitate improved histomorphometric outcomes compared with alternate grafting materials. However, the included studies were characterised by an unclear risk of bias and various methodological confounding factors. Hence, the conclusions drawn from the results of present study should be interpreted with caution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in complications and donor site morbidity following harvesting of autogenous bone graft from the ascending mandibular ramus compared with the chin region. Material and Methods: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library search in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals was conducted including human studies published in English through June 26, 2020. Randomized and controlled trials were included. Outcome measures included pain, infection, mucosal dehiscence, altered sensation or vitality of adjacent tooth/teeth, neurosensory disturbances and patient-reported outcome measures. Risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Ten controlled trials of high-quality fulfilled inclusion criteria. Risk of infection and mucosal dehiscence seems to be comparable with the two treatment modalities. However, harvesting from the chin seems to be associated with increased risk of pain, altered sensation or loss of tooth vitality, and neurosensory disturbances. Willingness to undergo the same treatment again was reported with both treatment modalities, but significant higher satisfaction, lower discomfort and acceptance of the surgical procedure was reported following harvesting from the ascending mandibular ramus. Conclusions: The hypothesis was rejected due to higher prevalence and severity of complications and donor site morbidity following harvesting of autogenous bone graft from the chin region. Dissimilar evaluation methods and various methodological confounding factors posed serious restrictions for literature review in a quantitative systematic manner. Conclusions drawn from results of this systematic review should therefore be interpreted with caution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]