Interventions for replacing missing teeth: bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment

Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Worthington HV, Coulthard P

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007 Issue 1
Copyright © 2007 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.

Date of last Subtantial Update: February 21. 2006

Authors' conclusions

Major bone grafting procedures of extremely resorbed mandibles may not be justified. Bone substitutes (Bio-Oss or Cerasorb) may replace autogenous bone for sinus lift procedures of extremely atrophic sinuses. Both guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures and distraction osteogenesis can augment bone vertically, but it is unclear which is the most efficient technique. It is unclear whether augmentation procedures at immediate single implants placed in fresh extraction sockets are needed, and which is the most effective augmentation procedure, however, sites treated with barrier + Bio-Oss showed a higher position of the gingival margin, when compared to sites treated with barriers alone. Non-resorbable barriers at fenestrated implants regenerated more bone than no barriers, however it remains unclear whether such bone is of benefit to the patient. It is unclear which is the most effective technique for augmenting bone around fenestrated implants. Bone morphogenetic proteins may enhance bone formation around implants grafted with Bio-Oss. The use of particulated autogenous bone from intraoral locations, also taken with dedicated aspirators, might be associated with an increased risk of infective complications. These findings are based on few trials including few patients, having sometimes short follow up, and being often judged to be at high risk of bias.

Augmentation procedures for the rehabilitation of deficient edentulous ridge with oral implant

Matteo Chiapasco, Marco Zaniboni, Maurizio Boisco,
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 17 (Suppl. 2), 2006; 136–159

Unit of Oral Surgery, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Dentistry, San Paolo Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

Results: Success rates of surgical procedures ranged from 60% to 100% for GBR, from 92%
to 100% for onlay bone grafts, from 98% to 100% for ridge expansion techniques, from
96,7% to 100% for DO, and was 87.5% for revascularized flaps, whereas survival rates of
implants ranged from 92% to 100% for GBR, from 60% to 100% for onlay bone grafts, from
91% to 97.3% for RE, from 90.4% to 100% for DO, and, finally, was 88.2% for
revascularized flaps.
Conclusion: On the basis of available data it was shown that it was difficult to demonstrate
that a particular surgical procedure offered better outcome as compared to another. The
main limit encountered in this review has been the overall poor methodological quality of
the published articles. Therefore larger well-designed long term trials are needed.

Effects of zinc deficiency on oral and periodontal diseases in rats

Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, and
2Department of Histology and Embryology, Medical School, Atatürk
University, Erzurum, Turkey

Dr Cankat Kara, Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi,
Periodontoloji Anabilim Dalı 25240, Erzurum, Turkey
Tel: +90 442231 1902
Fax: +90 442212 2380
e-mail: mcankat@hotmail.com

Conclusion: The findings indicated that oral health was better in
group II rats (those fed with a zinc-containing diet) than in group I
(zinc-deficient) rats. Hyperkeratinization was more prominent in
zinc-deficient rats. We suggest that zinc deficiency is a potential
risk factor for oral and periodontal diseases.

Factors Affecting Late Implant Bone Loss: A Retrospective Analysis

Factors Affecting Late Implant Bone Loss: A Retrospective Analysis

Dyeus M. Chung, DDS, MS / Tae-Ju Oh, DDS, MS / Jungwha Lee, MS / Carl E. Misch, DDS, MDS / Hom-Lay Wang, DDS, MSD


Purpose: Prevention of late implant bone loss is a critical component in long-term success of implants. The aim of the present study was to evaluate factors affecting late implant bone loss.
Materials and Methods: Three hundred thirty-nine endosseous root-form dental implants placed between April 1981 and April 2002 in 69 patients were analyzed. The implants were categorized based on the following factors: (1) surface characteristics (smooth versus rough), (2) length (short [< 10 mm] versus long [≡ 10 mm]), width (narrow [< 3.75 mm], regular [3.75 to 4.0 mm], or wide [> 4.0 mm]), (3) the amount of keratinized mucosa (< or ≡ 2 mm), (4) location (anterior versus posterior; maxilla versus mandible), (5) type of prosthesis (fixed versus removable), and (6) type of opposing dentition. The effects of these factors on clinical parameters, especially average annual bone loss (ABL), were evaluated clinically and radiographically by a blinded examiner. The parameters evaluated were modified Plaque Index, Gingival Index, modified Bleeding Index, probing depth, and ABL.
Results: Shorter implants, wider implants, implants supporting fixed prostheses, and implants in smokers were found to be associated with greater ABL (P < .05). The random intercept mixed effects model showed that implant length was the most critical factor for maintenance of ABL.
Conclusions: Shorter implants, wider implants, implants supporting fixed prostheses, and implants in smokers were associated with greater ABL. Implant length was the most significant factor in the maintenance of dental implants. Randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to confirm the results obtained from this retrospective clinical study. (Case Series) (More than 50 references.) Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:117每126

Key words: implant maintenance, implant surfaces, late implant bone loss, peri-implantitis