3.9 Article

Retrospective Study of Bone Grafting Procedures Before Implant Placement

Journal

IMPLANT DENTISTRY
Volume 19, Issue 4, Pages 342-350

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181e416f9

Keywords

bone graft; implant; surgery; complications

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate morbidity and possible complications in augmentation procedures before implant placement. Methods: Records from 93 consecutive patients with indication for autogenous bone grafting before implant placement, treated at Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Implantology of Uberlandia Federal University, in a 7-year period (July 2000 until July 2007), were reviewed. The need for bone grafting was defined by the impossibility of installing implants of adequate length or diameter to fulfill prosthetic requirements or for aesthetic reasons. Results: A total of 136 bone grafting procedures were performed. The mandibular external oblique line and ascending ramus were the most frequently used donor areas (59.64%) and block grafts (67.64%) were the most frequently used type of graft, frequently from the mandibular external oblique line/ascending ramus (52.18%). Platelet-rich plasma was used in 20.1% of all procedures, usually associated with particulate bone grafts. Maxillary procedures represented the majority of surgeries (75%), but with fewer complications compared with the mandible. Sinus mucosa perforation was the most frequent complication in maxillary procedures, whereas graft exposure was the most common complication in mandible. Conclusions: Alveolar reconstruction using autogenous bone followed by implant placement is a reliable treatment for patients with insufficient bone. Complications and morbidity were frequently observed. However, in only 6.6% of all procedures, the final rehabilitation with dental implants was not possible. (Implant Dent 2010;19:342-350)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available