These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Vertical bone augmentation with dental implant placement: efficacy and complications associated with 2 different techniques. A retrospective cohort study.
    Author: Merli M, Migani M, Bernardelli F, Esposito M.
    Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2006; 21(4):600-6. PubMed ID: 16955612.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare retrospectively the efficacy of and complications associated with 2 different techniques for vertical bone augmentation at implant placement: autogenous particulated bone grafts covered either by nonresorbable titanium-reinforced e-PTFE barriers or by resorbable collagen barriers supported by osteosynthesis plates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen partially edentulous patients were consecutively treated: 11 patients had 18 implants treated for vertical bone augmentation with nonresorbable barriers, whereas 8 patients had 11 implants treated with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis plates. Two independent assessors evaluated the amount of tissue regenerated and complications based on photographs and/or radiographs. RESULTS: No implants failed. In the group treated with nonresorbable barriers, complete bone regeneration was obtained for 12 of 18 implants. More than 50% of the planned regeneration was obtained for the remaining 6 implants. One patient had a dehiscence with suppuration that required an additional surgical intervention to remove the barrier. For resorbable barriers, complete regeneration was obtained for 10 of 11 implants. Dehiscences occurred in 2 patients. In 1 case no treatment was necessary. The other patient was treated with applications of chlorhexidine gel; more than 50% of the desired bone regeneration was obtained. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences for the amount of regenerated tissue and complications were observed between the 2 techniques; however, the power of the study was too low to detect a difference, if any. Randomized clinical trials with a sufficient number of patients are needed to determine which could be the most effective technique for vertical ridge augmentation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]