Logotipo do repositório
 

Publicação:
Graft incorporation and implant osseointegration following the use of autologous and fresh-frozen allogeneic block bone grafts for lateral ridge augmentation

dc.contributor.authorSpin-Neto, Rubens
dc.contributor.authorStavropoulos, Andreas
dc.contributor.authorColetti, Felipe Leite
dc.contributor.authorFaeda, Rafael Silveira
dc.contributor.authorPereira, Luís Antônio Violin Dias
dc.contributor.authorMarcantonio, Elcio
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-27T11:28:16Z
dc.date.available2014-05-27T11:28:16Z
dc.date.issued2013-01-29
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To compare autogenous bone (AT) and fresh-frozen allogeneic bone (AL) in terms of histomorphometrical graft incorporation and implant osseointegration after grafting for lateral ridge augmentation in humans. Materials and methods: Thirty-four patients were treated with either AL (20 patients) or AT (14 patients) onlay grafts. During implant installation surgery 6 months after grafting, cylindrical biopsies were harvested perpendicularly to the lateral aspect of the augmented alveolar ridge. Additionally, titanium mini-implants were installed in the grafted regions, also perpendicularly to the ridge; these were biopsied during second-stage surgery. Histological/histomorphometric analysis was performed using decalcified and non-decalcified sections. Results: Histological analysis revealed areas of necrotic bone (NcB) occasionally in contact with or completely engulfed by newly formed vital bone (VB) in both AT and AL groups (55.9 ± 27.6 vs. 43.1 ± 20.3, respectively; P = 0.19). Statistically significant larger amounts of VB (27.6 ± 17.5 vs. 8.4 ± 4.9, respectively; P = 0.0002) and less soft connective tissue (ST) (16.4 ± 15.6 vs. 48.4 ± 18.1, respectively; P ≤ 0.0001) were seen for AT compared with AL. No significant differences were observed between the groups regarding both bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and the bone area between implant threads (BA) on the mini-implant biopsies. Conclusion: Allogeneic bone block grafts may be an option in cases where a limited amount of augmentation is needed, and the future implant can be expected confined within the inner aspect of the bone block. However, the clinical impact of the relatively poor graft incorporation on the long-term performance of oral implants placed in AL grafts remains obscure. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S.en
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.12107
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, v. 0.
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/clr.12107
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161
dc.identifier.issn1600-0501
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84872780787
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/74431
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000329461200039
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Research
dc.relation.ispartofjcr4.305
dc.relation.ispartofsjr2,462
dc.relation.ispartofsjr2,462
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectAutogenous bone
dc.subjectBone augmentation
dc.subjectFresh-frozen allogeneic bone
dc.subjectHistology
dc.subjectHuman
dc.subjectOsseointegration
dc.titleGraft incorporation and implant osseointegration following the use of autologous and fresh-frozen allogeneic block bone grafts for lateral ridge augmentationen
dc.typeArtigo
dcterms.licensehttp://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-406071.html
dspace.entity.typePublication
unesp.author.orcid0000-0002-9660-4524[6]

Arquivos

Coleções