3.9 Article

Statements and Recommendations for Guided Bone Regeneration: Consensus Report of the Guided Bone Regeneration Symposium Held in Bologna, October 15 to 16, 2016

Journal

IMPLANT DENTISTRY
Volume 28, Issue 4, Pages 388-399

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000909

Keywords

guided bone regeneration; bone augmentation; guidelines; statements; bone atrophy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: In the past 10 years, long-term studies have demonstrated that guided bone regeneration (GBR) is a successful and reliable technique for vertical and horizontal ridge augmentation, but strict and rigorous protocols must be adopted. Material and Methods: Because no reports have yet been published with statements and clinical recommendations for GBR, a closed meeting of all authors was organized to discuss this matter during a GBR symposium held in Bologna (Italy) in October 2016. The authors focused on the findings of systematic and narrative reviews, prepared before the meeting, covering aspects of the clinical management of GBR techniques. Successively, a discussion based on the scientific evidence and on the experts' opinions led to the formulation of statements, clinical recommendations, and implications for future research. Results: To avoid complications and to optimize outcomes, the following factors should be considered by clinicians: patient selection; analysis of defect type; blood supply; antibiotic treatment; flap passivation; delayed implant placement; combination of autogenous bone and xenograft or allograft; rigorous fixation of membranes; removal after 6 to 9 months; analysis of complications; soft-tissue management; and high care in scarred sites and in esthetic areas. Conclusions: The present consensus report reviewed the scientific evidence and provided specific guidelines and recommendations for clinical practice and the different approaches to GBR techniques to ensure surgical success and predictable outcomes.

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