| 1. |
- Jepsen, S., et al.
(author)
-
Regeneration of alveolar ridge defects. Consensus report of group 4 of the 15th European Workshop on Periodontology on Bone Regeneration
- 2019
-
In: Journal of Clinical Periodontology. - : Wiley. - 0303-6979 .- 1600-051X. ; 46, s. 277-286
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background and Aims Bone augmentation procedures to enable dental implant placement are frequently performed. The remit of this working group was to evaluate the current evidence on the efficacy of regenerative measures for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. Material and Methods The discussions were based on four systematic reviews focusing on lateral bone augmentation with implant placement at a later stage, vertical bone augmentation, reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis associated defects, and long-term results of lateral window sinus augmentation procedures. Results A substantial body of evidence supports lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement as a predictable procedure in order to gain sufficient ridge width for implant placement. Also, vertical ridge augmentation procedures were in many studies shown to be effective in treating deficient alveolar ridges to allow for dental implant placement. However, for both procedures the rate of associated complications was high. The adjunctive benefit of reconstructive measures for the treatment of peri-implantitis-related bone defects has only been assessed in a few RCTs. Meta-analyses demonstrated a benefit with regard to radiographic bone gain but not for clinical outcomes. Lateral window sinus floor augmentation was shown to be a reliable procedure in the long term for the partially and fully edentulous maxilla. Conclusions The evaluated bone augmentation procedures were proven to be effective for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. However, some procedures are demanding and bear a higher risk for post-operative complications.
|
|
| 2. |
- Jepsen, S, et al.
(author)
-
Regenration of alveolar ridge defects : Consensus report of group 4 of the 15th European Workshop on Periodontology on Bone Regeneration
- 2019
-
In: Journal of Clinical Periodontology. - 0303-6979 .- 1600-051X. ; 46, s. 277-286
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Bone augmentation procedures to enable dental implant placement are frequently performed. The remit of this working group was to evaluate the current evidence on the efficacy of regenerative measures for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects.MATERIAL AND METHODS: The discussions were based on four systematic reviews focusing on lateral bone augmentation with implant placement at a later stage, vertical bone augmentation, reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis associated defects, and long-term results of lateral window sinus augmentation procedures.RESULTS: A substantial body of evidence supports lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement as a predictable procedure in order to gain sufficient ridge width for implant placement. Also, vertical ridge augmentation procedures were in many studies shown to be effective in treating deficient alveolar ridges to allow for dental implant placement. However, for both procedures the rate of associated complications was high. The adjunctive benefit of reconstructive measures for the treatment of peri-implantitis-related bone defects has only been assessed in a few RCTs. Meta-analyses demonstrated a benefit with regard to radiographic bone gain but not for clinical outcomes. Lateral window sinus floor augmentation was shown to be a reliable procedure in the long-term for the partially and fully edentulous maxilla.CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated bone augmentation procedures were proven to be effective for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. However, some procedures are demanding and bear a higher risk for postoperative complications. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 3. |
- Tomasi, Cristiano, 1964, et al.
(author)
-
Efficacy of reconstructive surgical therapy at peri-implantitis-related bone defects. A systematic review and meta-analysis
- 2019
-
In: Journal of Clinical Periodontology. - : Wiley. - 0303-6979. ; 46:S21, s. 340-356
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objectives The present systematic review aimed at evaluating the efficacy of reconstructive surgical therapy at peri-implantitis-related bone defects. Methods Studies reporting on outcomes of reconstructive surgery at peri-implantitis-related bone defects at 12 months were identified through an electronic search. Following data extraction, two different sets of meta-analyses were performed. Primarily, controlled studies were used to evaluate the potential benefit of reconstructive surgical therapy over controls. Secondly, overall outcome of reconstructive surgical therapy was assessed by comparing baseline values with outcomes at 12 months. Results were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD) or risk ratios (RR). Heterogeneity was described by I-2 and prediction intervals. Results The potential benefit of reconstructive techniques over control procedures was evaluated in three studies, representing a total of 116 implants. Altogether, 16 studies reported on the outcome of reconstructive measures at 12 months after surgery. The meta-analyses identified a larger improvement in marginal bone levels (MBL, WMD = 1.7 mm) and in defect fill (WMD = 57%) for test procedures, but found no differences for clinical measures (reduction of probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP). Changes of clinical attachment and soft tissue levels were not considered. In terms of overall outcome, therapy resulted in improved MBL (WMD = 2.0 mm) and CAL (WMD = 1.8 mm), in recession (WMD = 0.7 mm), in reduced PD (WMD = 2.8 mm) and in reduced BOP (Implants: RR = 0.4/Sites: RR = 0.2). None of the included studies addressed patient-reported outcome measures. Conclusions The available evidence on reconstructive therapy at peri-implantitis-related defects is limited by (a) the low number of controlled studies, (b) the lack of controlled studies for commonly used procedures, (c) the heterogeneity between studies and (d) the choice of outcome measures. A high variability for predicted outcomes at 12 months was noted. The interpretation of the demonstrated larger MBL gain for test procedures is difficult as graft material may not be distinguishable from newly formed bone. Potential aesthetic and patient-reported advantages remain to be demonstrated.
|
|
