Intraoral onlay block bone grafts versus cortical tenting technique on alveolar ridge augmentations: a systematic review

Amparo Aloy-Prósper, E. Carramolino-Cuéllar, D. Peñarrocha-Oltra, David Soto-Peñaloza, M. Peñarrocha-Diago
{"title":"Intraoral onlay block bone grafts versus cortical tenting technique on alveolar ridge augmentations: a systematic review","authors":"Amparo Aloy-Prósper, E. Carramolino-Cuéllar, D. Peñarrocha-Oltra, David Soto-Peñaloza, M. Peñarrocha-Diago","doi":"10.4317/medoral.25169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background To review systematically the bone gain and superficial resorption rate of the onlay block bone grafts versus the cortical tenting technique, as well as secondarily study the postoperative complications, implant survival and success rates, and peri-implant marginal bone loss. Material and Methods Following the recommended methods for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA), an electronic search was performed in the PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE and the Cochrane Library of the Cochrane Collaboration (CENTRAL) databases to identify all relevant articles published up to March 2021 on onlay block bone grafts and cortical tenting technique. Results Eighteen papers complied with the inclusion criteria. In onlay grafts, the vertical bone gain mean was 4.24 mm, and resorption 20.91%; and 4.29 mm in the horizontal augmentation with a resorption of 10.28%. The complication rate was 14.8%. The implant survival and success rates were 100% and 92%; and the mean peri-implant bone loss ranged from 0.6 to 1.26 mm. In cortical tenting technique, the vertical bone gain mean was 6.17 mm and the resorption of 9.99%; and 5.55 mm in the horizontal augmentation with a 6.12% of resorption. The complication rate was 24.6%. The implant survival and success rates were 96.63% and 100%; and the mean peri-implant bone loss ranged from 0.27 to 0.77mm. Conclusions Despite the limitations, both techniques offer a predicTable way to reconstruct atrophic alveolar ridges, though the cortical tenting technique seems to achieve a greater bone gain and a lower surface resorption. Current evidence is still limited due to the inadequate follow-up, lack of information referred to methodological quality and sample attrition. Key words:Onlay graft, cortical graft, intraoral bone, augmentation procedure.","PeriodicalId":18367,"journal":{"name":"Medicina Oral, Patología Oral y Cirugía Bucal","volume":"24 1","pages":"e181 - e190"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina Oral, Patología Oral y Cirugía Bucal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.25169","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Background To review systematically the bone gain and superficial resorption rate of the onlay block bone grafts versus the cortical tenting technique, as well as secondarily study the postoperative complications, implant survival and success rates, and peri-implant marginal bone loss. Material and Methods Following the recommended methods for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA), an electronic search was performed in the PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE and the Cochrane Library of the Cochrane Collaboration (CENTRAL) databases to identify all relevant articles published up to March 2021 on onlay block bone grafts and cortical tenting technique. Results Eighteen papers complied with the inclusion criteria. In onlay grafts, the vertical bone gain mean was 4.24 mm, and resorption 20.91%; and 4.29 mm in the horizontal augmentation with a resorption of 10.28%. The complication rate was 14.8%. The implant survival and success rates were 100% and 92%; and the mean peri-implant bone loss ranged from 0.6 to 1.26 mm. In cortical tenting technique, the vertical bone gain mean was 6.17 mm and the resorption of 9.99%; and 5.55 mm in the horizontal augmentation with a 6.12% of resorption. The complication rate was 24.6%. The implant survival and success rates were 96.63% and 100%; and the mean peri-implant bone loss ranged from 0.27 to 0.77mm. Conclusions Despite the limitations, both techniques offer a predicTable way to reconstruct atrophic alveolar ridges, though the cortical tenting technique seems to achieve a greater bone gain and a lower surface resorption. Current evidence is still limited due to the inadequate follow-up, lack of information referred to methodological quality and sample attrition. Key words:Onlay graft, cortical graft, intraoral bone, augmentation procedure.
牙槽嵴增强的口腔内嵌块骨移植物与皮质帐篷技术:系统回顾
研究背景:系统回顾与皮质支架技术相比,嵌体块骨移植的骨增重和表面吸收率,并对其术后并发症、种植体存活率和成功率以及种植体周围边缘骨丢失进行二次研究。材料和方法按照推荐的系统评价和荟萃分析方法(PRISMA),在PubMed (MEDLINE)、EMBASE和Cochrane Collaboration (CENTRAL)数据库的Cochrane Library中进行电子检索,以确定截至2021年3月发表的所有有关嵌体块骨移植物和皮质帐篷技术的相关文章。结果18篇论文符合纳入标准。种植体垂直骨长高平均为4.24 mm,骨吸收率为20.91%;水平增加4.29 mm,吸收率为10.28%。并发症发生率为14.8%。种植体成活率和成功率分别为100%和92%;种植体周围骨损失平均为0.6 ~ 1.26 mm。皮质支棚法垂直骨增重平均为6.17 mm,骨吸收率为9.99%;水平增大5.55 mm,吸收率为6.12%。并发症发生率为24.6%。种植体成活率和成功率分别为96.63%和100%;种植体周围骨损失平均为0.27 ~ 0.77mm。结论:尽管存在局限性,这两种技术都提供了一种可预测的方法来重建萎缩的牙槽嵴,尽管皮质帐篷技术似乎可以获得更大的骨增重和更低的表面吸收。目前的证据仍然有限,由于不充分的随访,缺乏信息提到的方法质量和样本损耗。关键词:移植体;骨皮质;口腔内骨;
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信