Bone Regeneration Techniques for Dental Implant Placement Comparing the Effect of Graft Material on Bone Volume and Long-Term Graft Stability: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.3
Malika Harish Hindocha, Omar Iqbal, Elizabeth M King
{"title":"Bone Regeneration Techniques for Dental Implant Placement Comparing the Effect of Graft Material on Bone Volume and Long-Term Graft Stability: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Malika Harish Hindocha, Omar Iqbal, Elizabeth M King","doi":"10.1563/aaid-joi-D-24-00238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The natural physiological bone resorption following tooth loss often results in reduced bone volume to place dental implants in a restoratively driven position. Bone regeneration procedures such as guided bone regeneration (GBR), sinus augmentation (SA), and alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) have therefore been developed to promote new bone formation. These procedures utilize bone grafting materials of which there are four types, namely, autogenous, allograft, xenograft, and alloplastic grafts. However, there is still no consensus on which material is superior. This systematic review aimed to analyze the current literature to compare alloplastic bone graft materials with autogenous bone, allograft, and xenograft materials when used in GBR, SA, and ARP to determine which is superior. Electronic searches were performed on MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL, along with manual searches to identify relevant randomized control trials and controlled clinical trials. Fifty-three studies were included. Although variations in the methods used between the studies prevented direct comparisons of the outcomes, overall, alloplastic materials were found to have osteoconductive properties, showing promising results with augmentation and preservation of alveolar ridge volume. Clinical parameters were also largely comparable with other graft materials. Alloplastic materials show promising results, with biphasic calcium phosphate being the most studied at present. There are many potential advantages to alloplastic grafts compared with the other materials; however, due to the lack of high-quality evidence in this review, definitive conclusions on which material is superior was not possible, and further research is required.</p>","PeriodicalId":519890,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of oral implantology","volume":"52 3","pages":"213-224"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of oral implantology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-24-00238","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The natural physiological bone resorption following tooth loss often results in reduced bone volume to place dental implants in a restoratively driven position. Bone regeneration procedures such as guided bone regeneration (GBR), sinus augmentation (SA), and alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) have therefore been developed to promote new bone formation. These procedures utilize bone grafting materials of which there are four types, namely, autogenous, allograft, xenograft, and alloplastic grafts. However, there is still no consensus on which material is superior. This systematic review aimed to analyze the current literature to compare alloplastic bone graft materials with autogenous bone, allograft, and xenograft materials when used in GBR, SA, and ARP to determine which is superior. Electronic searches were performed on MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL, along with manual searches to identify relevant randomized control trials and controlled clinical trials. Fifty-three studies were included. Although variations in the methods used between the studies prevented direct comparisons of the outcomes, overall, alloplastic materials were found to have osteoconductive properties, showing promising results with augmentation and preservation of alveolar ridge volume. Clinical parameters were also largely comparable with other graft materials. Alloplastic materials show promising results, with biphasic calcium phosphate being the most studied at present. There are many potential advantages to alloplastic grafts compared with the other materials; however, due to the lack of high-quality evidence in this review, definitive conclusions on which material is superior was not possible, and further research is required.

骨再生技术在牙种植体植入中的应用:比较移植物材料对骨体积和长期移植物稳定性的影响:系统综述。
牙齿脱落后的自然生理性骨吸收通常会导致骨体积减少,从而将种植体放置在修复驱动的位置。骨再生手术,如引导骨再生(GBR),窦增强(SA),和牙槽嵴保存(ARP),因此已发展促进新骨形成。这些手术使用的骨移植材料有四种类型,即自体、同种异体、异种移植和同种异体移植。然而,对于哪种材料更好,目前还没有达成共识。本系统综述旨在分析目前的文献,比较同种异体骨移植材料与自体骨、同种异体骨移植材料和异种骨移植材料在GBR、SA和ARP中的应用,以确定哪种材料更优越。在MEDLINE、Embase和CENTRAL上进行电子检索,同时进行人工检索,以确定相关的随机对照试验和对照临床试验。纳入了53项研究。虽然研究中使用的方法不同,无法直接比较结果,但总的来说,同种异体材料具有骨传导特性,在增加和保存牙槽嵴体积方面显示出有希望的结果。临床参数也与其他移植材料有很大的可比性。同种异体材料具有良好的应用前景,目前研究最多的是双相磷酸钙。与其他材料相比,同种异体移植具有许多潜在的优点;然而,由于本综述缺乏高质量的证据,无法确定哪种材料更优,需要进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书