4.5 Article

Histomorphometric analysis following augmentation of the posterior mandible using cancellous bone-block allograft

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
Volume 97A, Issue 4, Pages 509-513

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.33096

Keywords

posterior atrophic mandible; block allograft; augmentation; histomorphometry

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present study was conducted to histologically and histomorphometrically evaluate the application of cancellous bone-block allografts for the augmentation of the posterior atrophic mandible. Twenty-four consecutive patients underwent augmentation with cancellous bone-block allografts in the posterior mandible. A bony deficiency of at least 3 mm horizontally and/or vertically according to CT para-axial reconstruction served as inclusion criteria. Following 6 months, 85 implants were placed and a cylindrical sample core was collected. All specimens were prepared for histological and histomorphometrical examination. Implant survival rate was 95.3%. Follow-up ranged 12-66 months (mean 43 +/- 6 19 months). The mean newly formed bone was 44 6 +/- 28%, that of the residual cancellous bone-block allograft 29 6 +/- 24%, and of the marrow and connective tissue 27 +/- 21%. Statistically significant histomorphometric differences regarding newly formed bone (69% vs. 31%, p = 0.05) were found between younger (< 45 years) and older (> 45 years) patients, respectively. Histomorphometric differences regarding residual cancellous bone-block allograft (17% vs. 35%) and of the marrow and connective tissue (14% vs. 34%) were not statistically significant. Cancellous bone-block allograft is biocompatible and osteoconductive, permitting new bone formation following augmentation of extremely atrophic posterior mandible with a two-stage implant placement procedure. New bone formation was age-dependent. (C) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 97A: 509-513, 2011.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available