4.0 Review

Human Studies of Vertical and Horizontal Alveolar Ridge Augmentation Comparing Different Types of Bone Graft Materials: A Systematic Review

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY
Volume 44, Issue 1, Pages 74-84

Publisher

ALLEN PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-17-00053

Keywords

bone graft; bone; dental implants; peri-implantitits; implant failure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Alveolar ridge augmentation can be completed with various types of bone augmentation materials (autogenous, allograft, xenograft, and alloplast). Currently, autogenous bone is labeled as the gold standard'' because of faster healing times and integration between native and foreign bone. No systematic review has currently determined whether there is a difference in implant success between various bone augmentation materials. The purpose of this article was to systematically review comparative human studies of vertical and horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation comparing different types of bone graft materials (autogenous, allograft, xenograft, and alloplast). A MEDLINE search was conducted under the 3 search concepts of bone augmentation, dental implants, and alveolar ridge augmentation. Studies pertaining to socket grafts or sinus lifts were excluded. Case reports, small case series, and review papers were excluded. A bias assessment tool was applied to the final articles. Overall, 219 articles resulted from the initial search, and 9 articles were included for final analysis. There were no discernible differences in implant success between bone augmentation materials. Generally, patients preferred nonautogenous bone sources as there were fewer hospital days, less pain, and better recovery time. Two articles had industrial support; however, conclusions of whether that support influenced the outcomes could not be determined. Future comparative studies should compare nonautogenous bone sources and have longer follow-up times.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available