Alveolar distraction osteogenesis vs. vertical guided bone regeneration
Alveolar distraction osteogenesis vs. vertical guided bone regeneration for the correction of vertically deficient edentulous ridges: a 1-3-year prospective study on humans.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Feb;15(1):82-95.
Chiapasco M, Romeo E, Casentini P, Rimondini L.Unit of Oral Surgery, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Dentistry, San Paolo Hospital, University of Milan, Italy.
The purpose of this prospective study was to compare vertical guided bone regeneration (GBR) and vertical distraction osteogenesis (DO) for their ability in correcting vertically deficient alveolar ridges and their ability in maintaining over time the vertical bone gain obtained before and after implant placement. Eleven patients (group 1) were treated by means of vertical GBR with autogenous bone and e-PTFE membranes, while 10 patients (group 2) were treated by means of DO. In group 1, six patients received implants at the time of GBR (subgroup 1A), while five patients had implants placed at the time of membrane removal (subgroup 1B). In group 2, implants were placed at the time of distraction device removal. A total of 25 implants were placed in group 1 and 34 implants were placed in group 2 patients. Three to 5 months after implant placement, patients were rehabilitated with implant-borne dental prostheses. The following parameters were evaluated: (a) bone resorption of the regenerated ridges before and after implant placement; (b) peri-implant clinical parameters 1, 2, and 3 years after prosthetic loading of implants; (c) survival and success rates of implants. Bone resorption values before and after implant placement were significantly higher in group 1. The results suggested that both techniques may improve the deficit of vertically resorbed edentulous ridges, although distraction osteogenesis seems to be more predictable as far as the long-term prognosis of vertical bone gain is concerned. Implant survival rates as well as peri-implant clinical parameters do not differ significantly between the two groups, whereas the success rate of implants placed in group 2 patients was higher than that obtained in group 1 patients.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Feb;15(1):82-95.
Chiapasco M, Romeo E, Casentini P, Rimondini L.Unit of Oral Surgery, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Dentistry, San Paolo Hospital, University of Milan, Italy.
The purpose of this prospective study was to compare vertical guided bone regeneration (GBR) and vertical distraction osteogenesis (DO) for their ability in correcting vertically deficient alveolar ridges and their ability in maintaining over time the vertical bone gain obtained before and after implant placement. Eleven patients (group 1) were treated by means of vertical GBR with autogenous bone and e-PTFE membranes, while 10 patients (group 2) were treated by means of DO. In group 1, six patients received implants at the time of GBR (subgroup 1A), while five patients had implants placed at the time of membrane removal (subgroup 1B). In group 2, implants were placed at the time of distraction device removal. A total of 25 implants were placed in group 1 and 34 implants were placed in group 2 patients. Three to 5 months after implant placement, patients were rehabilitated with implant-borne dental prostheses. The following parameters were evaluated: (a) bone resorption of the regenerated ridges before and after implant placement; (b) peri-implant clinical parameters 1, 2, and 3 years after prosthetic loading of implants; (c) survival and success rates of implants. Bone resorption values before and after implant placement were significantly higher in group 1. The results suggested that both techniques may improve the deficit of vertically resorbed edentulous ridges, although distraction osteogenesis seems to be more predictable as far as the long-term prognosis of vertical bone gain is concerned. Implant survival rates as well as peri-implant clinical parameters do not differ significantly between the two groups, whereas the success rate of implants placed in group 2 patients was higher than that obtained in group 1 patients.
posted by Ajou Huang | 7:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home