ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To review systematically the bone gain and superficial resorption rate of the onlay block bone grafts versus the cortical tenting technique, as well as secondarily study the postoperative complications, implant survival and success rates, and peri-implant marginal bone loss. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Following the recommended methods for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA), an electronic search was performed in the PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE and the Cochrane Library of the Cochrane Collaboration (CENTRAL) databases to identify all relevant articles published up to March 2021 on onlay block bone grafts and cortical tenting technique. RESULTS: Eighteen papers complied with the inclusion criteria. In onlay grafts, the vertical bone gain mean was 4.24 mm, and resorption 20.91%; and 4.29 mm in the horizontal augmentation with a resorption of 10.28%. The complication rate was 14.8%. The implant survival and success rates were 100% and 92%; and the mean peri-implant bone loss ranged from 0.6 to 1.26 mm. In cortical tenting technique, the vertical bone gain mean was 6.17 mm and the resorption of 9.99%; and 5.55 mm in the horizontal augmentation with a 6.12% of resorption. The complication rate was 24.6%. The implant survival and success rates were 96.63% and 100%; and the mean peri-implant bone loss ranged from 0.27 to 0.77mm. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limitations, both techniques offer a predictable way to reconstruct atrophic alveolar ridges, though the cortical tenting technique seems to achieve a greater bone gain and a lower surface resorption. Current evidence is still limited due to the inadequate follow-up, lack of information referred to methodological quality and sample attrition.
Subject(s)
Alveolar Ridge Augmentation , Alveolar Process , Alveolar Ridge Augmentation/methods , Bone Transplantation , Dental Implantation, Endosseous/methods , HumansABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To compare the technique of high speed drilling with irrigation and low speed drilling without irrigation in order to evaluate the success rate and peri-implant bone loss at 12 months of follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized, controlled, parallel-group clinical trial was carried out in patients requiring dental implants to rehabilitate their unitary edentulism. Patients were recruited from the Oral Surgery Unit of the University of Valencia (Spain) between September 2014 and August 2015. Patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomized to two groups: group A (high-speed drilling with irrigation) and group B (low-speed drilling without irrigation). The success rate and peri-implant bone loss were recorded at 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (9 men and 16 women) with 30 implants were enrolled in the study: 15 implants in group A and 15 implants in group B. The mean bone loss of the implants in group A and group B was 0.83 ± 0.73 mm and 0.62 ± 0.70 mm, respectively (p> 0.05). In the maxilla, the bone loss was 1.04 ± 0.63 mm in group A and 0.71 ± 0.36 mm in group B (p> 0.05), while bone loss in the mandible was 0.59 ± 0.80 mm in group A and 0.69 ± 0.77 mm in group B (p> 0.05). The implant success rate at 12 months was 93.3% in group A and 100% in group B. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the study, the low-speed drilling technique presented peri-implant bone loss outcomes similar to those of the conventional drilling technique at 12 months of follow-up.
