Regeneración ósea con injertos intraorales: rama vs. mentón. Puesta al día / Bone regeneration with intraoral graft: ramus vs. chin. Updating

La utilización de injertos intraorales en bloque es una alternativa de tratamiento válida para la regeneración en anchura de defectos óseos maxilares y mandibulares. Sin embargo, actualmente no hay consenso entre los diferentes autores en la elección del mejor tipo de bloque intraoral a utilizar. Por ende, esta puesta al día busca comparar la ganancia ósea, la tasa de complicaciones postoperatorias y el éxito del injerto entre bloques autólogos de rama mandibular y mentón. La ganancia ósea alcanzada es similar en ambos bloques. No obstante, se podría deducir una mayor ganancia al utilizar bloques de la rama mandibular cuando son evaluados mediante CBCT. Además, la tasa de reabsorción ósea fue menor con los injertos de rama. La supervivencia de los implantes es equiparable con ambos tipos de injertos. Las complicaciones que tienen lugar, en orden de frecuencia, son las alteraciones sensoriales, las necrosis pulpares, dehiscencias y hemorragias; apareciendo con mayor frecuencia en los bloques de mentón. Además, el periodo de recuperación en las zonas de rama mandibular es más lento. De este modo, a la hora de la elección parece razonable individualizar el caso y tener en consideración aspectos como la morbilidad y el acceso a la zona donante. (AU)

The use of intraoral block grafts is a valid treatment alternative for the regeneration of maxillary and mandibular horizontal bone defects. However, there is currently no consensus among different authors on the choice of the best type of intraoral bone block to use. Therefore, this update seeks to compare bone gain, post-operative complication rate and grafting success between autologous mandibular ramus and chin bone block grafts. The bone gain achieved is similar in both block grafts. However, a higher gain can be observed by CBCT when using mandibular ramus blocks. In addition, the rate of bone resorption is lower with ramus grafts. Implant survival is comparable in both types of grafts. The complications that occur, in order of frequency, are sensory alterations, pulp necrosis, dehiscence and bleeding, appearing more frequently in chin blocks. In addition, the recovery period in the mandibular ramus areas is slower. Thus, when choosing, it seems reasonable to individualize the case and take into consideration aspects such as morbidity and access to the donor area. (AU)

Management of Schneiderian membrane perforations during maxillary sinus floor augmentation with lateral approach in relation to subsequent implant survival rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review aimed to propose a treatment protocol for repairing intraoperative perforation of the Schneiderian membrane during maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) procedures with lateral window technique. In turn, to assess subsequent implant survival rates placed below repaired membranes compared with intact membranes and therefore determine whether membrane perforation constitutes a risk factor for implant survival. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic search for articles published between 2008 and April 30, 2020, in four databases: (1) The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed) via Ovid; (2) Web of Science (WOS); (3) SCOPUS; and (4) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); also, a complementary handsearch was carried out. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess the quality of evidence in the studies reviewed. RESULTS: Seven articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. A total of 1598 sinus lift surgeries were included, allowing the placement of 3604 implants. A total of 1115 implants were placed under previously perforated and repaired membranes, obtaining a survival rate of 97.68%, while 2495 implants were placed below sinus membranes that were not damaged during surgery, obtaining a survival rate of 98.88%. The rate of Schneiderian membrane perforation shown in the systematic review was 30.6%. In the articles reviewed, the most widely used technique for repairing perforated membranes was collagen membrane repair. CONCLUSIONS: Schneiderian membrane perforation during MFSA procedures with lateral approach is not a risk factor for dental implant survival (p=0.229; RR 0.977; 95% CI 0.941-1.015). The knowledge of the exact size of the membrane perforation is essential for deciding on the right treatment plan.