Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985) · 2024
Histologic evaluation of edentulous alveolar ridge horizontal bone augmentations using a xenogeneic bone substitute and autologous platelet concentrates: a case series.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nagy Pal, Nemeth Florina, Ghanaati Shahram, Heselich Anja, Windisch Peter
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This case series aimed to assess the efficacy of a novel horizontal ridge augmentation modality using histology. Combinations of "sticky bone" and tenting screws without autologous bone were used as augmentative materials.
METHOD AND MATERIALS: Five individuals presenting healed, atrophic, partially edentulous sites that required horizontal bone augmentation before implant placement were enrolled. Patients underwent the same augmentation type and 5 months of postoperative reentry procedures. The first surgery served as implant site development, whereas the biopsy and corresponding implant placement were performed during reentry. The bone was qualitatively analyzed using histology and histomorphometry and quantitatively evaluated using CBCT.
RESULTS: Four individuals healed uneventfully. Early wound dehiscence occurred in one case. Histology showed favorable bone substitute incorporation into the newly formed bone and intimate contact between de novo bone and graft material in most cases. Histomorphometry revealed an average of 48 ± 28% newly formed bone, 19 ± 13% graft material, and 33 ± 26% soft tissue components. The CBCT-based mean alveolar ridge horizontal increase was 3.9 ± 0.6 mm at 5 months postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: The described augmentation method appears suitable for implant site development resulting in favorable bone quality according to histology. However, clinicians must accommodate 1 to 2 mm of resorption in augmentative material width at the buccal aspect.
METHOD AND MATERIALS: Five individuals presenting healed, atrophic, partially edentulous sites that required horizontal bone augmentation before implant placement were enrolled. Patients underwent the same augmentation type and 5 months of postoperative reentry procedures. The first surgery served as implant site development, whereas the biopsy and corresponding implant placement were performed during reentry. The bone was qualitatively analyzed using histology and histomorphometry and quantitatively evaluated using CBCT.
RESULTS: Four individuals healed uneventfully. Early wound dehiscence occurred in one case. Histology showed favorable bone substitute incorporation into the newly formed bone and intimate contact between de novo bone and graft material in most cases. Histomorphometry revealed an average of 48 ± 28% newly formed bone, 19 ± 13% graft material, and 33 ± 26% soft tissue components. The CBCT-based mean alveolar ridge horizontal increase was 3.9 ± 0.6 mm at 5 months postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: The described augmentation method appears suitable for implant site development resulting in favorable bone quality according to histology. However, clinicians must accommodate 1 to 2 mm of resorption in augmentative material width at the buccal aspect.