We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 33 (2018), No. 3     31. May 2018
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 33 (2018), No. 3  (31.05.2018)

Page 622-635, doi:10.11607/jomi.6290, PubMed:29763500

The Fate of Lateral Ridge Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Elnayef, Basel / Porta, Cristina / Suárez-López del Amo, Fernando / Mordini, Lorenzo / Gargallo-Albiol, Jordi / Hernández-Alfaro, Federico
Purpose: Owing to volumetric changes after tooth extraction, lateral ridge augmentation has become a common procedure prior or simultaneous to implant placement. Nonetheless, little is known with regard to the dimensional remodeling after healing of these lateral ridge augmentation procedures. Hence, the purpose of this systematic review was to assess the stability of bone grafting material between augmentation procedures and final healing, in terms of resorption rate.
Materials and Methods: An electronic and hand literature search was conducted in several databases, such as the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up until February 2017. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a mean follow-up of at least 6 months after implant placement aiming to evaluate the stability of grafting material for lateral ridge augmentation were included and quantitatively analyzed.
Results: A total of 35 articles were evaluated; however, only 17 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. A total of 15 studies reported information on bone resorption, leading to a total sample of 304 implants. The estimated overall mean horizontal bone gain at the time of regeneration was 3.71 ± 0.24 mm, with 4.18 ± 0.56 mm for the block graft technique and 3.61 ± 0.27 mm for guided bone regeneration (GBR). The estimated overall net bone gain at final re-evaluation (11.9 ± 7.8) was 2.86 ± 0.23 mm. The estimated mean (± SD) resorption after 6 months was 1.13 ± 0.25 mm, with 0.75 ± 0.59 mm for the block graft technique and 1.22 ± 0.28 mm for GBR. The implant survival rate was 97% to 100%.
Conclusion: Regardless of the material used for regeneration, different degrees of graft resorption should be expected. Given the sample of investigations analyzed in this review, block grafts seemed to maintain the volume of the initial augmentation site more than GBR techniques. During the initial stages of healing, the GBR technique experienced more changes compared with block grafts. The resorption of the xenograft group was inferior compared with the combination of xenograft and autologous bone groups. Consequently, overcorrection of the horizontal defects should be performed to compensate for the resorption of the grafting materials.

Keywords: alveolar bone atrophy, bone regeneration, dental implant, evidence-based dentistry