ABSTRACT
Objectives: The objective of the present systematic review was to evaluate the current knowledge of implant treatment outcome following lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with autogenous tooth block graft compared with autogenous bone block graft prior to implant placement. Material and Methods: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library search in combination with hand-search of relevant journals was conducted including human studies published in English through December 20, 2021. Comparative and non-comparative studies assessing lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with autogenous tooth block graft were included. Quality and risk-of-bias assessment were evaluated by Cochrane risk of bias tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and GRADE system. Results: One comparative study characterized by low grade and two non-comparative studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. No significant difference in short-term implant survival, health status of the peri-implant tissue or frequency of complications between the two treatment modalities was observed. Postoperative dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge width were significant diminished with tooth block compared with bone block (P = 0.0029). Consequently, the gain in alveolar ridge width was significantly higher with tooth block, after 26 weeks (P = 0.014). However, a higher frequency of short-term peri-implant mucositis was observed with tooth block. Conclusions: Lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with tooth block seems to be a suitable alternative to bone block. However, results of the present systematic review are based on short-term studies involving small patient samples. Further long-term randomized controlled trials are therefore needed before definite conclusions can be provided about the beneficial use of tooth block compared with bone block.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Test the hypothesis of no difference in the volumetric stability of the grafting material following maxillary sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone graft compared with composite grafting material or bone substitute alone applying the lateral window technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane library and hand-search of relevant journals were conducted. Human studies published in English until the 9th of October 2020 were included. Outcome measures included three-dimensional volumetric changes of the grafting material and potential predictive parameters. Volumetric changes were evaluated by descriptive statistics and meta-analysis including 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Electronic search and hand-searching resulted in 102 entries. Four randomized controlled trials with unclear risk of bias fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The volumetric stability of the grafting material was significantly improved by mixing autogenous bone graft with a non-resorbable xenograft compared with autogenous bone graft. Meta-analyses assessing absolute and relative volumetric changes demonstrated no significant differences between autogenous bone graft compared with allogeneic bone graft, synthetic biomaterials combined with autogenous bone graft or used alone. Association between volumetric changes of the grafting material and potential predictive parameters were not assessed in the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Volumetric reduction of the augmented area seems inevitable following maxillary sinus floor augmentation regardless of the grafting material. The volumetric stability of autogenous bone graft is improved with addition of xenograft compared with autogenous bone graft. However, conclusions drawn from this systematic review should be interpreted with caution since only four studies using three-dimensional radiographic measurements were included.