Search

Objective: The objective was to assess the one year implant treatment outcome and patient‐related outcome measures (PROMs) following maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) with autogenous bone graft (ABG) from the zygomatic buttress (control) compared with 1:1 mixture of ABG and anorganic porcine bone mineral (APBM) (Test I) or biphasic bone graft material (BBGM) (Test II). Materials and Methods: Sixty healthy patients (34 females, 26 males) were randomly allocated to either control or test groups. Outcome measures included survival of suprastructures and implants, implant stability quotient, health status of peri‐implant tissue, peri‐implant marginal bone loss, frequency of complications, and PROMs using Oral Health Impact Profile‐14 combined with questionnaire assessing patient perception of peri‐implant soft tissue, prosthetic solution, implant function, and implant treatment outcome using visual analogue scale. Mean differences were expressed with standard deviation and 95% confidence interval. Level of significance was.05. Results: All suprastructures and implants were well‐functioning after one year of functional implant loading. There was no significant difference between control and test groups in any of the applied outcome measures. The implant stability significantly increased from implant placement to abutment connection within all groups (p <.001). High patient satisfaction and significant improvement in oral health‐related quality of life was also reported within all groups. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that MSFA with composite grafts containing minimal amounts of ABG reveals comparable implant treatment outcomes as compared with ABG alone, after one year of functional implant loading. Extensive ABG harvesting in conjunction with MSFA therefore seems not to be needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim was to evaluate the 1‐year implant outcome and patient‐related outcome measures (PROMs) after maxillary sinus membrane elevation and coagulum (test) compared with maxillary sinus floor augmentation and a 1:1 ratio of autogenous bone graft from the buccal antrostomy and deproteinised porcine bone mineral (DPBM) (control). Materials and methods: Forty patients (30 female, 10 male) with a mean age of 50 years (range 25–71 years) and an alveolar ridge height between 4 and 7 mm were randomly allocated to test or control. Outcome measures included survival of suprastructures and implants, implant stability quotient, health status of the peri‐implant tissue, peri‐implant marginal bone loss, frequency of complications and PROMs using Oral Health Impact Profile‐14 combined with questionnaires assessing patient's perception of the peri‐implant soft tissue, implant crown, function of the implant, and total implant treatment outcome using visual analogue scale. Mean differences were expressed with standard deviation and 95% confidence interval. Level of significance was 0.05. Results: All suprastructures and implants were well‐functioning after 1‐year of functional implant loading. No significant difference in any of the applied outcome measures was observed between test and control. Both treatments revealed high patient satisfaction scores and significant improvement in oral health‐related quality of life. Conclusion: There were no significant differences in implant outcome and PROMs between test and control, after 1‐year of functional implant loading. Neither of the treatments can therefore be considered better than the other. Thus, long‐term randomized controlled trials are needed before definitive conclusions can be provided about the two treatment modalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 whether there is a difference in professional and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROM) after single‐crown restoration supported by short implants (SI) (6 mm) compared with standard length implants (SLI) (13 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) after 1 year of functional implant loading. Material and Methods: Forty patients were randomly allocated to SI or SLI/MSFA. PROM included Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP‐14) questionnaire and subjective assessment of the peri‐implant soft tissue (A), implant crown (B), implant function (C) and overall implant treatment outcome (D) using visual analogue scale (VAS). Professional assessment included pink aesthetic score (PES) and white aesthetic score (WES). Results: No significant differences in professional or PROM between the two treatment modalities were revealed at any time point (p >.05). OHIP‐14 score decreased at baseline and 1 year after functional implant loading compared with preoperative measurements indicating improved quality of life with both treatment modalities. The 1‐year mean VAS score was 9.4 (A), 9.3 (B), 9.6 (C) and 9.3 (D) for SI compared with 9.3 (A), 9.6 (B), 9.7 (C) and 9.2 (D) for SLI. The 1‐year mean PES/WES scores were 11.3 and 8.1 for SI compared with 11.2 and 8.1 for SLI/MSFA. Conclusions: Prosthetic rehabilitation of the posterior part of the maxilla with SI or SLI/MSFA revealed no significant differences in professional and PROM after 1 year of implant loading. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective was to assess patient's perception of recovery after maxillary sinus membrane elevation (MSME) and blood coagulum (test) compared with maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) and 1:1 mixture of autogenous bone graft from the buccal antrostomy and deproteinized porcine bone mineral (DPBM) (control). Materials and methods: Forty healthy patients were randomly allocated to test or control. Oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) was evaluated by Oral Health Impact Profile‐14 (OHIP‐14) at enrollment and 1 week postsurgical. Recovery was estimated by questionnaires and visual analog scale assessing pain, social and working isolation, physical appearance, eating and speaking ability, diet variations, sleep impairment, and discomfort after 1 week and 1 month. Mean differences were expressed with 95% confidence interval (CI). Association between OHRQoL and recovery was estimated. p‐value below.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Maxillary sinus membrane elevation revealed 2.1 less days of pain (p =.03, 95% CI: 0.2–4.1) and 1.2 days of sick leave (p =.01, 95% CI: 0.3–2.1) compared with MSFA. No significant difference was observed in eating and speaking ability, physical appearance, work performance, and sleep impairment. No significant association between impaired OHRQoL and recovery was observed. Females reported 4.77 higher OHIP‐14 score compared with males (p =.01, 95% CI: 1.60–7.94), while association between age and OHIP‐14 was −0.10 (p =.28, 95% CI: −0.28 to 0.08). Conclusion: Maxillary sinus membrane elevation revealed significantly less days of pain and sick leave compared with MSFA. Harvesting of autogenous bone graft seems, therefore, to have a significant impact on perception of recovery. [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]