Atormac
Home  -  About us  -  Editorial board  -  Search  -  Ahead of print  -  Current issue  -  Archives  -  Instructions  -  Subscribe  -  Contacts  -  Advertise - Login 
 
 
     
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 263-277

Guided bone regeneration for the reconstruction of alveolar bone defects


1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium
2 Gifted and Talented Dental Students Division, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4 Advanced Periodontology Program, Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

Correspondence Address:
Arash Khojasteh
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Daneshjou Boulevard, P.O. Box: 19839, Evin, Tehran

Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/ams.ams_76_17

PMID: 29264297

Rights and Permissions

Background: Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is the most common technique for localized bone augmentation. Purpose: The purpose of this review was to categorize and assess various GBR approaches for the reconstruction of human alveolar bone defects. Materials and Methods: Electronic search of four databases including PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane and hand searching were performed to identify human trials attempting GBR for the reconstruction of alveolar bony defects for at least 10 patients from January 2000 to August 2015. To meet the inclusion criteria, studies had to report preoperative defect dimensions in addition to outcomes of bone formation and/or resorption. Results: Twenty-five human clinical trials were included of which 17 used conventional technique that is the use of space maintaining membrane with bone grafting particles (GBR I). Application of block bone graft with overlying membrane and particulate fillers was reported in seven studies (GBR II), and utilizing cortical bone block tented over a defect preserving particulate fillers was reported by one study (GBR III). A wide range of initial defects' sizes and treatment results were reported. Conclusions: This review introduces a therapeutically oriented classification system of GBR for treating alveolar bone defects. High heterogeneity among studies hindered drawing definite conclusions in regard to superiority of one to the other GBR technique.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed5039    
    Printed49    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded886    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 10    

Recommend this journal