Maxillary Alveolar Ridge Expansion with Split-Crest Technique Compared with Lateral Ridge Augmentation with Autogenous Bone Block Graft: a Systematic Review.

IF 1 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research Pub Date : 2019-12-30 eCollection Date: 2019-10-01 DOI:10.5037/jomr.2019.10402
Thomas Starch-Jensen, Jonas Peter Becktor
{"title":"Maxillary Alveolar Ridge Expansion with Split-Crest Technique Compared with Lateral Ridge Augmentation with Autogenous Bone Block Graft: a Systematic Review.","authors":"Thomas Starch-Jensen,&nbsp;Jonas Peter Becktor","doi":"10.5037/jomr.2019.10402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of the present systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in implant treatment outcome after maxillary alveolar ridge expansion with split-crest technique compared with lateral ridge augmentation with autogenous bone block graft.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library search in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals was conducted. Human studies published in English until 8th of February, 2018 were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One comparative and four noncomparative studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Both treatment modalities disclosed high survival rate of implants with few complications. High survival rate of prosthesis, implant stability values, limited peri-implant marginal bone loss and gain in maxillary alveolar ridge width were reported with the split-crest technique. Patient-reported outcome measure and length of patient treatment time was not assessed in any of the included studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The split-crest technique seems to be useful for horizontal augmentation of maxillary alveolar deficiencies with high survival rate of prosthesis and implants. However, further long-term randomized controlled trials with larger patient sample as well as assessment of patient-reported outcome measures and patient treatment time are needed before well-defined conclusions can be provided about the two treatment modalities.</p>","PeriodicalId":53254,"journal":{"name":"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/da/16/jomr-10-e2.PMC7012616.pdf","citationCount":"28","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2019.10402","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 28

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of the present systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in implant treatment outcome after maxillary alveolar ridge expansion with split-crest technique compared with lateral ridge augmentation with autogenous bone block graft.

Material and methods: A MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library search in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals was conducted. Human studies published in English until 8th of February, 2018 were included.

Results: One comparative and four noncomparative studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Both treatment modalities disclosed high survival rate of implants with few complications. High survival rate of prosthesis, implant stability values, limited peri-implant marginal bone loss and gain in maxillary alveolar ridge width were reported with the split-crest technique. Patient-reported outcome measure and length of patient treatment time was not assessed in any of the included studies.

Conclusions: The split-crest technique seems to be useful for horizontal augmentation of maxillary alveolar deficiencies with high survival rate of prosthesis and implants. However, further long-term randomized controlled trials with larger patient sample as well as assessment of patient-reported outcome measures and patient treatment time are needed before well-defined conclusions can be provided about the two treatment modalities.

Abstract Image

上颌牙槽嵴裂嵴扩展技术与自体骨块侧嵴增强技术的比较:系统综述。
目的:本系统综述的目的是验证采用裂嵴技术进行上颌牙槽嵴扩张与采用自体骨块移植进行侧嵴增加后种植体治疗结果无差异的假设。材料和方法:在MEDLINE (PubMed)、Embase和Cochrane图书馆进行检索,并结合手工检索相关期刊。纳入了2018年2月8日之前以英文发表的人类研究。结果:1项比较研究和4项非比较研究符合纳入标准。两种治疗方式均显示种植体成活率高,并发症少。结果表明:采用裂嵴技术种植体成活率高,种植体稳定性好,种植体周围边缘骨丢失少,上颌牙槽嵴宽度增加。纳入的任何研究均未评估患者报告的结果测量和患者治疗时间长度。结论:劈裂嵴技术可用于上颌牙槽缺损的水平隆高,假体和种植体成活率高。然而,在提供关于这两种治疗方式的明确结论之前,需要进一步进行更大患者样本的长期随机对照试验,以及对患者报告的结果测量和患者治疗时间的评估。
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
19
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信