Home  -  About us  -  Editorial board  -  Search  -  Ahead of print  -  Current issue  -  Archives  -  Instructions  -  Subscribe  -  Contacts  -  Advertise - Login 
 
 
     

 Table of Contents  
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 78-90

Success rate of implants placed in autogenous bone blocks versus allogenic bone blocks: A systematic literature review


1 Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Research Institute of Dental Sciences, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences; Department of Tissue Engineering, School of Advanced Technologies in Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Date of Web Publication12-Jul-2016

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Arash Khojasteh
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Daneshjou Boulevard, P.O. 19839, Evin, Tehran
Iran
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/2231-0746.186143

PMID: 27563613

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

The aim of this study is to review and compare survival/success rate of dental implants inserted in autogenous and allogenic bone blocks (ALBs). A PubMed search was performed from January 1990 to June 2014 limited to English language and human studies. Studies that reported treatment outcome of implants inserted in augmented alveolar ridges with autogenous or ALBs were included. Primary search identified 470 studies. For autogenous bone block (ABB) 36 articles and for ALB 23 articles met the inclusion criteria. Evidence on implant survival/success rate of both techniques was limited to observational studies with relatively small sample sizes. Study design, treatment methods, follow-ups, defect location, and morphology varied among studies. The range of implant survival and success rates in ABB was from 73.8% to 100% and 72.8% to 100%, respectively. The corresponding numbers for ALB were 95.3–100% and 93.7–100%, respectively. A definite conclusion could not be reached. Future studies with long-term follow-ups are required to further elucidate this issue.

Keywords: Allografts, alveolar bone grafting, alveolar bone loss, alveolar ridge augmentation, dental implantation


How to cite this article:
Motamedian SR, Khojaste M, Khojasteh A. Success rate of implants placed in autogenous bone blocks versus allogenic bone blocks: A systematic literature review. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2016;6:78-90

How to cite this URL:
Motamedian SR, Khojaste M, Khojasteh A. Success rate of implants placed in autogenous bone blocks versus allogenic bone blocks: A systematic literature review. Ann Maxillofac Surg [serial online] 2016 [cited 2021 Jun 25];6:78-90. Available from: https://www.amsjournal.com/text.asp?2016/6/1/78/186143


  Introduction Top


Dental implants are an alternative treatment for replacement of missing teeth. To achieve optimum treatment outcome with dental implants, sufficient bone should be available to support and stabilize them.[1],[2] Alveolar bone defects occur due to periodontitis, trauma, tumors, or resorption following tooth extraction and need augmentation before placement of dental implants.[3],[4] Augmentation of atrophic jaws can be performed using autogenous [5] or tissue engineered bone grafts [6],[7] or guided bone regeneration.[8] Autogenous block used as onlay bone graft is considered as the “gold standard” for reconstruction of atrophic ridges.[9],[10] Autogenous grafts can be harvested from intraoral or extraoral donor sites. Intraoral donor sites such as symphysis, lateral ramus, and tuberosity are associated with less morbidity and resorption [11] when compared to extraoral donor sites.[12],[13] However, the larger the defect of the jaw, the greater the need for an extraoral donor site such as the iliac crest, calvarium, and tibia. Autogenous donor site morbidities and limitations [14] such as transient paresthesia, costs, and hospitalization [15],[16] prompted the need for allogenic human bone. Allogenic blocks are categorized based on their preparation process. The preparation process along with sterilization of allografts is performed to reduce immune response and inhibit disease transmission.[17] Fresh frozen bone allografts (FFBAs) induce a stronger immune response compared to freeze-dried bone allografts (FDBA).[18],[19] However, freeze drying decreases the mechanical properties of the bone block.[17],[20] Clinical application of these materials has been reported in some case series.[17],[18] However, successful integration and remodeling of these bone substitutes have been an issue of debate.[21]

Although the use of allogenic bone block (ALB) is tempting, treatment outcome in comparison with autogenous bone block (ABB) has never been reviewed to provide scientific evidence for clinical application. Herein, we review survival and success rates of dental implants inserted in ALB and ABB.


  Materials and Methods Top


Study design

In the current review, studies that reported treatment outcome of implants (survival/success rates) inserted in augmented alveolar ridges with ABB or ALB in humans were included. Inlay bone grafting was excluded and only onlay use of bone blocks was evaluated. In addition, studies which used growth factors or stem cells in conjugation with bone grafts were excluded. Studies that used various augmentative techniques and did not report implant survival/success rates of onlay bone blocks separately were also excluded. The study design was not a criterion of inclusion for this attentive review and any clinical research was included. Studies on cases with the primary cause of alveolar defect being neoplasm, osteoradionecrosis, or congenital malformations were also excluded.

Search strategy

An electronic search of the literature in PubMed was carried out from January 1990 to June 2014 limited to English language and human studies. The following search terms were used based on PICO model:

Patient: Human.

Intervention: AND (“onlay graft*” OR “onlay bone graft*” OR “iliac crest” OR “ilium” OR “allograft bone*” OR “autograft bone*” OR “bone transplant*” OR “block graft*” OR “block bone*” OR “block autograft*” OR “block allograft*” OR “fresh frozen bone*” OR “freeze dried bone*” AND (implant OR implants).

Control: No term was used for the control group to include studies which reported only the results of on technique.

Outcome: AND (survival OR complication* OR failure* OR success*).

Primary selection including screening titles and abstracts was based on the inclusion criteria and full texts of all eligible studies were obtained. The authors reviewed full texts. Searching and screening process was performed by two reviewers independently and any disagreement was discussed by a third reviewer. Among different reports of one experiment, only the latest report, which revealed the most relevant information with respect to the measurements of this review, was included.

Data extraction included implant survival/success rate, treatment complications, and histological evaluations.

Quality assessment

During data extraction, the quality assessment of the included articles was undertaken by the authors according to the following parameters:[22] Proper randomization (yes/no); presence of both control and test groups (yes/no); surgeon blinded to treatment (yes/no/unclear); blindness to outcome (yes/no/unclear); follow-up completion (yes [withdrawal or dropout explanation]/no). Similar to the search process, quality assessment was also done by two reviewers independently and any disagreement was discussed by a third reviewer.

The experiments were then grouped as either low risk of bias (bias unlikely to influence the outcomes) if all criteria were met; medium risk of bias if three or four criteria were met; or high risk of bias (bias that might weakens confidence in results) if three or more criteria were not met.


  Results Top


Electronic search of the literature yielded a total of 635 articles, of which 57 were included [Figure 1]. Thirty-six out of 57 were related to ABB and 23 to ALB. Two studies compared both techniques.[23],[24] Due to the lack of randomized clinical trials and a wide range of study designs, data reporting, recipient site and morphology, defect diameter, graft type, etc., a quantitative outcome measurement could not perform.
Figure 1: Literature search strategy

Click here to view


The results of the literature review (patients and methods, implant survival rate, complication, and histologic evaluation) are presented separately for each type of the bone block.


  Autogenous Bone Block Top


Patients and methods

Thirty-six studies that fit this category are displayed in [Table 1]. Assessing quality of the reviewed publications demonstrated that most of the articles were retrospective studies. Overall, 872 patients who needed alveolar ridge augmentation before implant placement were treated with ABB. Among the studies that reported the type of edentulism, 247 cases were partially edentulous and 205 patients were totally edentulous.
Table 1: Summary of autogenous bone block studies

Click here to view


Graft-recipient site was exclusively in the maxilla in 16 studies including 343 patients [12],[23],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38] and exclusively in the mandible in nine studies including 145 patients.[15],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46] In three studies (36 patients), only the posterior mandible was reconstructed [15],[41],[42] and in four studies (64 patients) the defects were located in anterior maxillary area.[25],[26],[27],[28] Defects were augmented mostly vertically (height range: 3–10 cm)[28],[39],[40],[41],[15],[44],[46],[47],[55] and horizontal augmentation was performed in fewer patients (width range: 2–6).[23],[25],[29],[42],[48],[49] In ten studies, both horizontal and vertical augmentation had been performed.[12],[26],[31],[32],[34],[35],[36],[51],[53],[55]

Intraoral sites (mental symphysis, mandibular body/ramus, and maxillary tuberosity) were the primary source of autogenous bone (362 patients) followed by Iliac crest in 295 patients. The calvarium was the graft source in three studies;[31],[43],[54] however, the number of used calvarial grafts was not reported. The harvested bone was used alone as a block bone graft in 419 patients (48% of the cases). Particulate bone (autogenous, allogenic, or synthetic) was used in combination with block graft in 399 patients. Collagen membrane and titanium mesh were used in 169 and 50 patients, respectively.

Outcome

Implant success and survival rates

The included studies involved insertion of 2,647 implants; of which, 968 were inserted simultaneously with grafts. Survival rates ranging from 73.8% to 100% over 12–192 months were reported in 19 studies.[12],[16],[24],[25],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[37],[38],[39],[41],[42],[43],[44],[46],[47],[48],[51],[52],[53],[55] Success rates of 72.8–100% were reported in 12 studies.[23],[26],[29],[34],[35],[36],[40],[41],[15],[43],[45],[47],[48],[49],[50],[52],[54] Criteria for implant success rate were based on Albrektsson et al.'s criteria [56] in nine [29],[15],[43],[47],[49],[50],[52],[54] and Buser et al.'s [57] criteria in two of them.[41],[48] Among studies that only treated maxillary defects, survival and success rates of implants ranged from 73.8% to 100%[12],[25],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[37],[38] and 72.8% to 100%,[23],[26],[29],[34],[35],[36] respectively. In studies on the mandible, the corresponding numbers ranged from 90% to 100%[39],[41],[42],[43],[44],[46],[47] and 88.2% to 93.3%,[40],[41],[15],[43],[45] respectively. Survival and success rates of implants inserted in the anterior zone of the maxilla were from 75% to 100%[25],[27],[28] and 81.2%,[26] respectively. In the posterior mandible, the corresponding numbers were 95.6–100%[41],[42] and 89.5–91.1%,[15],[41] respectively. Studies that harvested bone grafts from intraoral sites reported 94.1% to 100%[16],[24],[25],[28],[29],[41],[42],[47],[48],[52],[53],[55] and 81.2% to 100%[26],[29],[41],[15],[47],[48],[49],[52] implant survival and success rates, respectively. The corresponding ranges for extraoral donor sites were 73.8–100%[12],[27],[30],[31],[33],[37],[38],[39],[43],[44],[46] and 72.8–96.1%,[23],[34],[35],[36],[40],[43],[45],[54] respectively.

Complications

Most of the studies did not report complications or stated no major complications. Other studies reported few occurrences of minor complications including peri-implantitis,[37],[39] exposure of the membrane,[55] exposure of the graft,[12],[15],[41],[43],[47],[48],[49] infection,[31],[38],[47] soft tissue dehiscence,[31],[38],[40],[41],[43],[45],[48] hematoma,[27],[33] discomfort,[37],[38] and graft loss.[26],[33],[35]

Neurosensory disturbance as a major complication was mostly associated with intraoral donor sites.[40],[41],[45],[48] McGrath et al.[40] and van der Meij et al.[45] reported mental nerve damage in 11.1% and 14.7% of patients, respectively. In a study by Isaksson et al.,[37] one patient had neurological disturbances following bone harvesting from the iliac crest.

Histological evaluation

Bone graft integration was histologically evaluated in two studies both using mandibular lateral ramus bone blocks.[24],[29] The nonvital bone was 57.75%[29] and 55.9%[24] of total tissue volume; 27.6% vital bone and 16.4% connective tissue formation were reported by Spin-Neto et al.[24]


  Allogenic Bone Block Top


Patients and methods

Twenty-three studies that fit this category are displayed in [Table 2]. Assessment of the quality of the reviewed publications demonstrated that most of the articles were case series. Overall, 532 patients who needed alveolar ridge augmentation prior to implant placement were treated by means of ALB. Among the studies reported, the type of edentulism in 209 cases was partially edentulous and only 15 patients were totally edentulous.
Table 2: Summary of allogenic bone block studies

Click here to view


The recipient site was exclusively the maxilla in 11 studies (212 patients)[23],[58],[59],[60],[61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66],[67] and exclusively the mandible in two studies (45 patients).[68],[69] In one study (24 patients), only the posterior mandible [68] was reconstructed and in two studies (51 patients) the defects were located only in the anterior maxilla.[58],[59] Most defects underwent horizontal augmentation (width range: 2–5 cm)[23],[24],[60],[61],[62],[64],[66],[67],[72],[73],[76],[77],[78] and vertical augmentation was performed in fewer patients (height range: 3–4 cm).[64],[68],[73] In nine studies, both horizontal and vertical augmentations were performed.[58],[59],[63],[66],[68],[72],[73]

Different kinds of allograft bone blocks were used. FFBA was the most common type (254 patients) followed by FDBA (94 patients). The block bone was used alone in 210 patients (39.5% of the cases). Particulate bone (allogenic and xenogenic) was applied in combination with block graft in 81 patients. Resorbable/nonresorbable membranes (272 patients), platelet-rich plasma (three patients),[71] or bone marrow aspirate (five patients)[66] was also used.

Outcome

Implant success and survival rates

The included studies involved insertion of 1395 implants; of which, 48 were inserted simultaneously with the graft. Survival rates ranging from 95.3% to 100% over 12–60 months were reported in 19 studies.[24],[58],[60],[61],[62],[63],[65],[66],[67],[68],[69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78] Success rates of 94.7–100% were reported in four of the studies.[23],[59],[63],[64] Criteria for implant success rate were based on Albrektsson et al.'s criteria [56] in three of them [23],[63],[64] while other studies did not mention the success criteria. Among studies that only treated maxillary defects, survival and success rates of implants ranged from 98.3% to 100%[58],[60],[61],[62],[63],[65],[66],[67] and 94.7% to 100%,[23],[59],[63],[64] respectively. In studies on the mandible, the implant survival rate ranged from 95.3% to 100%.[24],[68],[69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78] No study reported implant success rate in the mandible. Survival of implants inserted in the anterior zone of the maxilla was between 98.8%[58] and 100%.[60] In the posterior mandible, implant survival rate was 95.3%.[68]

Complications

Most of the studies did not report complications and no major complications were recorded. Other studies reported few occurrences of minor complications including graft exposure,[24],[61],[64],[65],[72] graft loss,[24],[72],[75] soft tissue dehiscence,[59],[70],[75] and infection.[70],[75],[78]

Histological evaluation

Bone graft integration was histologically evaluated in 11 studies,[24],[58],[60],[61],[65],[66],[68],[71],[75],[76],[78] mostly revealing incorporation and remodeling of block allograft with no inflammatory response. However, Acocella et al.[60] reported poor cellular activity and poor amounts of newly formed bone with no signs of rapid revascularization of the recipient site. In the cited article, osteoclasts were rarely detected and a mixture of fibrous and new bone formation was observed at the graft recipient site interface in some cases. The presence of a large number of osteocytes trapped within the mineralized matrix, angiogenesis, and few osteonic structures was reported by Orsini et al.[61]

The amount of nonvital bone, vital bone, and soft tissue ranged from 26% to 61.96%, 8.4% to 44%, and 27% to 48.4%, respectively.[24],[58],[60],[61],[66],[68] The new bone presented features of mainly woven and lamellar bone with large marrow spaces.[60],[75]


  Quality Assessment Top


Estimated risk of bias for each study is reported in [Table 3] that shows that almost all included studies had a high risk of bias.
Table 3: Quality assessment

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Autogenous onlay grafts are considered the gold standard treatment for alveolar defects. Systematic reviews on survival rates for dental implants in ABB augmented alveolar ridges showed various study designs.[79],[80] Due to limitations of ABB, onlay grafting with allogenic blocks has been recently evaluated. However, reviews on ALB reported a lack of evidence for the establishment of its treatment efficacy.[81],[82] The current review compared implant treatment outcomes between ABB and ALB. Most biocompatible substitutes can be integrated into the host bone due to minimal inflammatory response, but only the remodeled tissue can be named a successful bone graft. The normal remodeling process of the jaw usually takes more than 12 months.[4]

Keith et al.[75] reported implant survival rate of 99% when only seven out of 82 ALBs failed. Duration of follow-up was not mentioned for three ABB [24],[50],[55] and five ALB groups.[24],[64],[66],[77],[78] Wallace and Gellin [62] had reported 4 months follow-up. Carinci et al.[63] showed that cumulative implant success rate decreased from 96% in the 1st year to 40% in 4 years due to crestal bone loss. Follow-ups for ALB were relatively shorter than ABB (12–192 months vs. 12–60 months).

The resorption rate of ALB was three times more than that of ABB at 6 months.[83] Occlusal force or accumulation of microbial plaque may cause micro-fractures in a nonremodelable bone block and cause weakness in maintaining crestal bone around dental implants.[84] Deluiz et al.[78] demonstrated that significantly different resorption rates of allografts occur during 4–8 months of healing.

ABB harvested from intraoral donor sites showed higher implant survival than extraoral donor sites (94.1–100%[16],[24],[25],[28],[29],[41],[42],[47],[48],[52],[53],[55] vs. 73.8–100%).[12],[27],[30],[31],[33],[37],[38],[39],[44],[45],[47] In this group, implants placed in reconstructed mandibles survived longer than implants in reconstructed maxillae (90–100%[39],[41],[42],[43],[44],[46],[47] vs. 73.8–100%).[12],[25],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[37],[38]

Simultaneous implant placement had a frequency higher than 36% in ABB groups. Survival of simultaneously placed dental implants was higher than those placed in ALB after a healing period (93.7% vs. 98.6%).[74] Peñarrocha-Diago et al.[48] reported 98.5% survival rate for both delayed and simultaneously inserted implants in autografts harvested from intraoral sites.

Recipient site analysis and matching is an important variable in the interpretation of results of augmentative techniques. ALB was mostly used for horizontal bone augmentation or defects limited to one or two teeth. No report of ALB could be found in the treatment of posterior mandible in our review; most were found in the anterior maxilla. Graft resorption occurred more in the mandible than in the maxilla.[52] Dimension and location of the recipient site influence treatment outcomes.[85]

Particulate bone with collagen membrane has been used with ALB in comparison to ABB (48% vs. 39.5%). The addition of PRP to ALB resulted in 100% survival of implants.[71]

Two trials compared implant treatment outcomes between ALB and ABB.[23],[24] Horizontal augmentation of defects <4 mm width resulted in 100% implant survival rate for both techniques.[24] Five-year follow-up of the horizontal augmentation of the maxilla revealed 96.1% and 98.7% success rates for implants inserted in ABB and ALB, respectively.[23]

Low incidence of complications related to onlay bone grafting was observed in both techniques. Paresthesia was mostly transient and related to intraoral donor sites.[40],[41],[45],[48] In addition, pain and discomfort were reported in few studies following block harvesting from the iliac crest.[37],[38]

Histological evaluation in two articles revealed that more than half of the tissue volume was nonvital graft remnants.[24],[29] Acocella et al.[29] demonstrated reduction of nonvital bone and final remodeling with time. A wide range of remodeling has been reported (8.4%[24] to 44%[68]). While most studies revealed proper integration of ALB, some studies reported no regenerative and remodeling activity with a high percentage of nonvital bone.[24],[60] Formation of fibrous tissue, which was reported in some cases at the graft recipient site interface, could reduce graft survival.[60] Goldberg and Stevenson [86] mentioned delayed vascularization of ALB and longer implant healing periods.

Comparing histological integration of ABB and ALB, Spin-Neto et al.[24] reported that larger amounts of both nonvital and vital bone and lesser amounts of soft connective tissue were observed in the ABB group. No difference was observed between the groups in either bone-to-implant contact or the bone area between implant threads.[24]


  Conclusion Top


Due to the lack of controlled clinical trials, a definite consensus cannot be reached regarding the success and survival of implants placed in defects reconstructed with autogenic versus ALB. Wide ranges of implant success and survival have been reported for both techniques. The main concern regarding ABB is donor site complications and for ALB is the integration of the graft. Future studies with longer follow-ups are required to further elucidate these issues.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Hirsch JM, Brånemark PI. Fixture stability and nerve function after transposition and lateralization of the inferior alveolar nerve and fixture installation. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995;33:276-81.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Khojasteh A, Eslaminejad MB, Nazarian H, Morad G, Dashti SG, Behnia H, et al. Vertical bone augmentation with simultaneous implant placement using particulate mineralized bone and mesenchymal stem cells: A preliminary study in rabbit. J Oral Implantol 2013;39:3-13.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Shayesteh YS, Khojasteh A, Siadat H, Monzavi A, Bassir SH, Hossaini M, et al. A comparative study of crestal bone loss and implant stability between osteotome and conventional implant insertion techniques: A randomized controlled clinical trial study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013;15:350-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Shabestari GO, Shayesteh YS, Khojasteh A, Alikhasi M, Moslemi N, Aminian A, et al. Implant placement in patients with oral bisphosphonate therapy: A case series. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:175-80.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Khojasteh A, Mohajerani H, Momen-Heravi F, Kazemi M, Alikhasi M. Sandwich bone graft covered with buccal fat pad in severely atrophied edentulous maxilla: A clinical report. J Oral Implantol 2011;37:361-6.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Jafarian M, Eslaminejad MB, Khojasteh A, Mashhadi Abbas F, Dehghan MM, Hassanizadeh R, et al. Marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells-directed bone regeneration in the dog mandible: A comparison between biphasic calcium phosphate and natural bone mineral. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105:e14-24.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Khojasteh A, Behnia H, Hosseini FS, Dehghan MM, Abbasnia P, Abbas FM. The effect of PCL-TCP scaffold loaded with mesenchymal stem cells on vertical bone augmentation in dog mandible: A preliminary report. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2013;101:848-54.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Khojasteh A, Soheilifar S, Mohajerani H, Nowzari H. The effectiveness of barrier membranes on bone regeneration in localized bony defects: A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:1076-89.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Morad G, Khojasteh A. Cortical tenting technique versus onlay layered technique for vertical augmentation of atrophic posterior mandibles: A split-mouth pilot study. Implant Dent 2013;22:566-71.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Khojasteh A, Behnia H, Shayesteh YS, Morad G, Alikhasi M. Localized bone augmentation with cortical bone blocks tented over different particulate bone substitutes: A retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1481-93.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Misch CM. Comparison of intraoral donor sites for onlay grafting prior to implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:767-76.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Barone A, Covani U. Maxillary alveolar ridge reconstruction with nonvascularized autogenous block bone: Clinical results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:2039-46.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Le B, Burstein J, Sedghizadeh PP. Cortical tenting grafting technique in the severely atrophic alveolar ridge for implant site preparation. Implant Dent 2008;17:40-50.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Scheerlinck LM, Muradin MS, van der Bilt A, Meijer GJ, Koole R, Van Cann EM. Donor site complications in bone grafting: Comparison of iliac crest, calvarial, and mandibular ramus bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:222-7.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Chiapasco M, Zaniboni M, Rimondini L. Autogenous onlay bone grafts vs. alveolar distraction osteogenesis for the correction of vertically deficient edentulous ridges: A 2-4-year prospective study on humans. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:432-40.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Cordaro L, Amadé DS, Cordaro M. Clinical results of alveolar ridge augmentation with mandibular block bone grafts in partially edentulous patients prior to implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:103-11.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Giannoudis PV, Dinopoulos H, Tsiridis E. Bone substitutes: An update. Injury 2005;36 Suppl 3:S20-7.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Strong DM, Friedlaender GE, Tomford WW, Springfield DS, Shives TC, Burchardt H, et al. Immunologic responses in human recipients of osseous and osteochondral allografts. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996;326:107-14.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Ehrler DM, Vaccaro AR. The use of allograft bone in lumbar spine surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000;371:38-45.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Bhatt RA, Rozental TD. Bone graft substitutes. Hand Clin 2012;28:457-68.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
21McAllister BS, Haghighat K. Bone augmentation techniques. J Periodontol 2007;78:377-96.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Khojasteh A, Kheiri L, Motamedian SR, Nadjmi N. Regenerative medicine in the treatment of alveolar cleft defect: A systematic review of the literature. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015;43:1608-13.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Dahlin C, Johansson A. Iliac crest autogenous bone graft versus alloplastic graft and guided bone regeneration in the reconstruction of atrophic maxillae: A 5-year retrospective study on cost-effectiveness and clinical outcome. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2011;13:305-10.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Spin-Neto R, Stavropoulos A, Coletti FL, Faeda RS, Pereira LA, Marcantonio E Jr. Graft incorporation and implant osseointegration following the use of autologous and fresh-frozen allogeneic block bone grafts for lateral ridge augmentation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:226-33.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Jemt T, Lekholm U. Measurements of buccal tissue volumes at single-implant restorations after local bone grafting in maxillas: A 3-year clinical prospective study case series. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5:63-70.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Balaji SM. Management of deficient anterior maxillary alveolus with mandibular parasymphyseal bone graft for implants. Implant Dent 2002;11:363-9.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Astrand P, Nord PG, Branemark PI. Titanium implants and onlay bone graft to the atrophic edentulous maxilla: A 3-year longitudinal study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;25:25-9.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Raghoebar GM, Batenburg RH, Vissink A, Reintsema H. Augmentation of localized defects of the anterior maxillary ridge with autogenous bone before insertion of implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:1180-5.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Acocella A, Bertolai R, Colafranceschi M, Sacco R. Clinical, histological and histomorphometric evaluation of the healing of mandibular ramus bone block grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation before implant placement. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2010;38:222-30.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Molly L, Quirynen M, Michiels K, van Steenberghe D. Comparison between jaw bone augmentation by means of a stiff occlusive titanium membrane or an autologous hip graft: A retrospective clinical assessment. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:481-7.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Keller EE, Tolman DE, Eckert S. Surgical-prosthodontic reconstruction of advanced maxillary bone compromise with autogenous onlay block bone grafts and osseointegrated endosseous implants: A 12-year study of 32 consecutive patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:197-209.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Lekholm U, Wannfors K, Isaksson S, Adielsson B. Oral implants in combination with bone grafts. A 3-year retrospective multicenter study using the Brånemark implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;28:181-7.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Clayman L. Implant reconstruction of the bone-grafted maxilla: Review of the literature and presentation of 8 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;64:674-82.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Nyström E, Ahlqvist J, Gunne J, Kahnberg KE. 10-year follow-up of onlay bone grafts and implants in severely resorbed maxillae. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;33:258-62.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Widmark G, Andersson B, Carlsson GE, Lindvall AM, Ivanoff CJ. Rehabilitation of patients with severely resorbed maxillae by means of implants with or without bone grafts: A 3- to 5-year follow-up clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:73-9.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
van Steenberghe D, Naert I, Bossuyt M, De Mars G, Calberson L, Ghyselen J, et al. The rehabilitation of the severely resorbed maxilla by simultaneous placement of autogenous bone grafts and implants: A 10-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 1997;1:102-8.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Isaksson S, Alberius P. Maxillary alveolar ridge augmentation with onlay bone-grafts and immediate endosseous implants. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1992;20:2-7.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Adell R, Lekholm U, Gröndahl K, Brånemark PI, Lindström J, Jacobsson M. Reconstruction of severely resorbed edentulous maxillae using osseointegrated fixtures in immediate autogenous bone grafts. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:233-46.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Verhoeven JW, Cune MS, Terlou M, Zoon MA, de Putter C. The combined use of endosteal implants and iliac crest onlay grafts in the severely atrophic mandible: A longitudinal study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;26:351-7.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
McGrath CJ, Schepers SH, Blijdorp PA, Hoppenreijs TJ, Erbe M. Simultaneous placement of endosteal implants and mandibular onlay grafting for treatment of the atrophic mandible. A preliminary report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;25:184-8.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Aloy-Prósper A, Cervera-Ballester J, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Canullo L, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Implant treatment in atrophic posterior mandibles: Vertical regeneration with block bone grafts versus implants with 5.5-mm intrabony length. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:659-66.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Ozkan Y, Ozcan M, Varol A, Akoglu B, Ucankale M, Basa S. Resonance frequency analysis assessment of implant stability in labial onlay grafted posterior mandibles: A pilot clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:235-42.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Chiapasco M, Colletti G, Romeo E, Zaniboni M, Brusati R. Long-term results of mandibular reconstruction with autogenous bone grafts and oral implants after tumor resection. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:1074-80.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Bell RB, Blakey GH, White RP, Hillebrand DG, Molina A. Staged reconstruction of the severely atrophic mandible with autogenous bone graft and endosteal implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;60:1135-41.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
van der Meij EH, Blankestijn J, Berns RM, Bun RJ, Jovanovic A, Onland JM, et al. The combined use of two endosteal implants and iliac crest onlay grafts in the severely atrophic mandible by a modified surgical approach. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;34:152-7.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Vermeeren JI, Wismeijer D, van Waas MA. One-step reconstruction of the severely resorbed mandible with onlay bone grafts and endosteal implants. A 5-year follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;25:112-5.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Kim JW, Cho MH, Kim SJ, Kim MR. Alveolar distraction osteogenesis versus autogenous onlay bone graft for vertical augmentation of severely atrophied alveolar ridges after 12 years of long-term follow-up. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013;116:540-9.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Peñarrocha-Diago M, Aloy-Prósper A, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Guirado JL, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Localized lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with block bone grafts: Simultaneous versus delayed implant placement: A clinical and radiographic retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:846-53.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Boronat A, Carrillo C, Penarrocha M, Pennarocha M. Dental implants placed simultaneously with bone grafts in horizontal defects: A clinical retrospective study with 37 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:189-96.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Elo JA, Herford AS, Boyne PJ. Implant success in distracted bone versus autogenous bone-grafted sites. J Oral Implantol 2009;35:181-4.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Sbordone L, Toti P, Menchini-Fabris G, Sbordone C, Guidetti F. Implant survival in maxillary and mandibular osseous onlay grafts and native bone: A 3-year clinical and computerized tomographic follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:695-703.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Levin L, Nitzan D, Schwartz-Arad D. Success of dental implants placed in intraoral block bone grafts. J Periodontol 2007;78:18-21.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Sethi A, Kaus T. Ridge augmentation using mandibular block bone grafts: Preliminary results of an ongoing prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:378-88.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Chiapasco M, Abati S, Romeo E, Vogel G. Clinical outcome of autogenous bone blocks or guided bone regeneration with e-PTFE membranes for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10:278-88.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Roccuzzo M, Ramieri G, Spada MC, Bianchi SD, Berrone S. Vertical alveolar ridge augmentation by means of a titanium mesh and autogenous bone grafts. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:73-81.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11-25.  Back to cited text no. 56
[PUBMED]    
57.
Buser D, Weber HP, Lang NP. Tissue integration of non-submerged implants 1-year results of a prospective study with 100 ITI hollow-cylinder and hollow-screw implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1990;1:33-40.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Nissan J, Marilena V, Gross O, Mardinger O, Chaushu G. Histomorphometric analysis following augmentation of the anterior atrophic maxilla with cancellous bone block allograft. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:84-9.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Nissan J, Romanos GE, Mardinger O, Chaushu G. Immediate nonfunctional loading of single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla following augmentation with freeze-dried cancellous block allograft: A case series. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:709-16.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Acocella A, Bertolai R, Ellis E 3rd, Nissan J, Sacco R. Maxillary alveolar ridge reconstruction with monocortical fresh-frozen bone blocks: A clinical, histological and histomorphometric study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2012;40:525-33.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Orsini G, Stacchi C, Visintini E, Di Iorio D, Putignano A, Breschi L, et al. Clinical and histologic evaluation of fresh frozen human bone grafts for horizontal reconstruction of maxillary alveolar ridges. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2011;31:535-44.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Wallace S, Gellin R. Clinical evaluation of freeze-dried cancellous block allografts for ridge augmentation and implant placement in the maxilla. Implant Dent 2010;19:272-9.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Carinci F, Brunelli G, Franco M, Viscioni A, Rigo L, Guidi R, et al. A retrospective study on 287 implants installed in resorbed maxillae grafted with fresh frozen allogenous bone. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:91-8.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Barone A, Varanini P, Orlando B, Tonelli P, Covani U. Deep-frozen allogeneic onlay bone grafts for reconstruction of atrophic maxillary alveolar ridges: A preliminary study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:1300-6.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Contar CM, Sarot JR, Bordini J Jr, Galvão GH, Nicolau GV, Machado MA. Maxillary ridge augmentation with fresh-frozen bone allografts. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:1280-5.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
Soltan M, Smiler D, Prasad HS, Rohrer MD. Bone block allograft impregnated with bone marrow aspirate. Implant Dent 2007;16:329-39.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
Gomes KU, Carlini JL, Biron C, Rapoport A, Dedivitis RA. Use of allogeneic bone graft in maxillary reconstruction for installation of dental implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66:2335-8.  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
Nissan J, Marilena V, Gross O, Mardinger O, Chaushu G. Histomorphometric analysis following augmentation of the posterior mandible using cancellous bone-block allograft. J Biomed Mater Res A 2011;97:509-13.  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.
Carinci F, Brunelli G, Zollino I, Franco M, Viscioni A, Rigo L, et al. Mandibles grafted with fresh-frozen bone: An evaluation of implant outcome. Implant Dent 2009;18:86-95.  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.
Nissan J, Mardinger O, Strauss M, Peleg M, Sacco R, Chaushu G. Implant-supported restoration of congenitally missing teeth using cancellous bone block-allografts. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;111:286-91.  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.
Petrungaro PS, Amar S. Localized ridge augmentation with allogenic block grafts prior to implant placement: Case reports and histologic evaluations. Implant Dent 2005;14:139-48.  Back to cited text no. 71
    
72.
Novell J, Novell-Costa F, Ivorra C, Fariñas O, Munilla A, Martinez C. Five-year results of implants inserted into freeze-dried block allografts. Implant Dent 2012;21:129-35.  Back to cited text no. 72
    
73.
Peleg M, Sawatari Y, Marx RN, Santoro J, Cohen J, Bejarano P, et al. Use of corticocancellous allogeneic bone blocks for augmentation of alveolar bone defects. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:153-62.  Back to cited text no. 73
    
74.
Viscioni A, Rigo L, Franco M, Brunelli G, Avantaggiato A, Sollazzo V, et al. Reconstruction of severely atrophic jaws using homografts and simultaneous implant placement: A retrospective study. J Oral Implantol 2010;36:131-9.  Back to cited text no. 74
    
75.
Keith JD Jr., Petrungaro P, Leonetti JA, Elwell CW, Zeren KJ, Caputo C, et al. Clinical and histologic evaluation of a mineralized block allograft: Results from the developmental period (2001-2004). Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26:321-7.  Back to cited text no. 75
    
76.
Leonetti JA, Koup R. Localized maxillary ridge augmentation with a block allograft for dental implant placement: Case reports. Implant Dent 2003;12:217-26.  Back to cited text no. 76
[PUBMED]    
77.
Lyford RH, Mills MP, Knapp CI, Scheyer ET, Mellonig JT. Clinical evaluation of freeze-dried block allografts for alveolar ridge augmentation: A case series. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003;23:417-25.  Back to cited text no. 77
    
78.
Deluiz D, Oliveira LS, Pires FR, Tinoco EM. Time-dependent changes in fresh-frozen bone block grafts: Tomographic, histologic, and histomorphometric findings. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:296-306.  Back to cited text no. 78
    
79.
Rocchietta I, Fontana F, Simion M. Clinical outcomes of vertical bone augmentation to enable dental implant placement: A systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35 8 Suppl:203-15.  Back to cited text no. 79
    
80.
Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Zaniboni M. Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24Suppl:237-59.  Back to cited text no. 80
    
81.
Waasdorp J, Reynolds MA. Allogeneic bone onlay grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation: A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:525-31.  Back to cited text no. 81
    
82.
Araújo PP, Oliveira KP, Montenegro SC, Carreiro AF, Silva JS, Germano AR. Block allograft for reconstruction of alveolar bone ridge in implantology: A systematic review. Implant Dent 2013;22:304-8.  Back to cited text no. 82
    
83.
Spin-Neto R, Stavropoulos A, Dias Pereira LA, Marcantonio E Jr., Wenzel A. Fate of autologous and fresh-frozen allogeneic block bone grafts used for ridge augmentation. A CBCT-based analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:167-73.  Back to cited text no. 83
    
84.
Pelker RR, Friedlaender GE. Biomechanical aspects of bone autografts and allografts. Orthop Clin North Am 1987;18:235-9.  Back to cited text no. 84
[PUBMED]    
85.
Khojasteh A, Morad G, Behnia H. Clinical importance of recipient site characteristics for vertical ridge augmentation: A systematic review of literature and proposal of a classification. J Oral Implantol 2013;39:386-98.  Back to cited text no. 85
    
86.
Goldberg VM, Stevenson S. Natural history of autografts and allografts. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987;225:7-16.  Back to cited text no. 86
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]


This article has been cited by
1 An Extrudable Partially Demineralized Allogeneic Bone Paste Exhibits a Similar Bone Healing Capacity as the “Gold Standard” Bone Graft
Pierre Tournier,Jérôme Guicheux,Arnaud Paré,Joëlle Veziers,Ana Barbeito,Raphaël Bardonnet,Pierre Corre,Valérie Geoffroy,Pierre Weiss,Alexis Gaudin
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 2021; 9
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 2D Nanomaterials for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Nanomedicines: Recent Advances and Future Challenges
Yuanyuan Zheng,Xiangqian Hong,Jiantao Wang,Longbao Feng,Taojian Fan,Rui Guo,Han Zhang
Advanced Healthcare Materials. 2021; : 2001743
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Design Techniques to Optimize the Scaffold Performance: Freeze-dried Bone Custom-made Allografts for Maxillary Alveolar Horizontal Ridge Augmentation
Felice Roberto Grassi,Roberta Grassi,Leonardo Vivarelli,Dante Dallari,Marco Govoni,Gianna Maria Nardi,Zamira Kalemaj,Andrea Ballini
Materials. 2020; 13(6): 1393
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Customized allogeneic bone grafts for maxillary horizontal augmentation: A 5-year follow-up radiographic and histologic evaluation
Frank Rudolf Kloss,Vincent Offermanns,Phil Donkiewicz,Anita Kloss-Brandstätter
Clinical Case Reports. 2020;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 The use of photobiomodulation therapy or LED and mineral trioxide aggregate improves the repair of complete tibial fractures treated with wire osteosynthesis in rodents
Antônio L. B. Pinheiro,Luiz G. P. Soares,Aline C. P. da Silva,Nicole R. S. Santos,Anna Paula L. T. da Silva,Bruno Luiz R. C. Neves,Amanda P. Soares,Marleny Elizabeth M. M. Gerbi,Jean Nunes dos Santos
Lasers in Medical Science. 2020;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 The Paracrine Role of Endothelial Cells in Bone Formation via CXCR4/SDF-1 Pathway
Tal Tamari,Rawan Kawar-Jaraisy,Ofri Doppelt,Ben Giladi,Nadin Sabbah,Hadar Zigdon-Giladi
Cells. 2020; 9(6): 1325
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 Bacterial Nanocellulose in Dentistry: Perspectives and Challenges
Hélida Gomes de Oliveira Barud,Robson Rosa da Silva,Marco Antonio Costa Borges,Guillermo Raul Castro,Sidney José Lima Ribeiro,Hernane da Silva Barud
Molecules. 2020; 26(1): 49
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 Bone Augmentation and Simultaneous Implant Placement with Allogenic Bone Rings and Analysis of Its Purification Success
Bernhard Giesenhagen,Nathalie Martin,Ole Jung,Mike Barbeck
Materials. 2019; 12(8): 1291
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
9 One-Stage Vertical Ridge Augmentation and Dental Implantation With Allograft Bonerings: Results 1 Year After Surgery
Thomas Nord,Orcan Yüksel,Wolf-Dieter Grimm,Bernd Giesenhagen
Journal of Oral Implantology. 2019; 45(6): 457
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
10 Investigation of a novel sterilization method for biofilms formed on titanium surfaces
Rei NAGAO,Daisuke ESAKI,Yukie SHIBATA,Satoshi IKAWA,Katsuhisa KITANO,Yasunori AYUKAWA,Yasuyuki MATSUSHITA,Masaaki MATSUZAKI,Kiyoshi KOYANO
Dental Materials Journal. 2019;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
11 Anterior atrophic mandible restoration using cancellous bone block allograft
Liat Chaushu,Gavriel Chaushu,Roni Kolerman,Marilena Vered,Sarit Naishlos,Joseph Nissan
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2019;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
12 Bilateral maxillary augmentation using CAD/CAM manufactured allogenic bone blocks for restoration of congenitally missing teeth: A case report
Oliver Blume,Phil Donkiewicz,Michael Back,Teresa Born
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2019;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
13 Effect of Topical Honey on Mandibular Bone Defect Healing in Rats
Bahman Derakhshan,Farhad Hajizadeh,Zahra Abbasi
The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice. 2018; 19(1): 47
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
14 CEComparison of allogeneic and autogenous bone grafts for augmentation of alveolar ridge defects-A 12-month retrospective radiographic evaluation
Frank R. Kloss,Vincent Offermanns,Anita Kloss-Brandstätter
Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
15 U-Shaped Bone Splitting and Osteotome Techniques for Narrow Alveolar Ridge in Implant Surgery
Yang Yao,Kun He,Ping Gong,Hua Tang
Implant Dentistry. 2018; 27(4): 507
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
16 Treatment of a bilaterally severely resorbed posterior mandible due to early tooth loss by Guided Bone Regeneration using customized allogeneic bone blocks: A case report with 24 months follow-up data
Oliver Blume,Michael Back,Teresa Born,Ralf Smeets,Ole Jung,Mike Barbeck
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
17 Vertical bone augmentation in a single-tooth gap with an allogenic bone ring: Clinical considerations
Bernhard Giesenhagen,Nathalie Martin,Phil Donkiewicz,Željka Peric Kacarevic,Ralf Smeets,Ole Jung,Reinhard Schnettler,Mike Barbeck
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
18 Effect of Bone Regeneration with Mineralized Plasmatic Matrix for Implant Placement in Aesthetic Zone
Khadija Amine,Amina Gharibi,Azeddine Hsaine,Jamila Kissa
Case Reports in Dentistry. 2017; 2017: 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
19 Use of Implants Constructed Using Three-dimensional Titanium Nickelide Mesh to Fill Cavity Defects in the Femur
M. V. Stogov,O. V. Diuriagina,N. V. Tushina,E. A. Kireeva
Biomedical Engineering. 2017; 51(4): 267
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
20 Bone Augmentation Using Allogeneic Bone Blocks With Recombinant Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2
Craig M. Misch
Implant Dentistry. 2017; 26(6): 826
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
21 Bone autografts & allografts placed simultaneously with dental implants in rabbits
Marna Ribeiro marna,Erica Hohlenwerger Fraguas,Keila Ilse Cangussu Brito,Yeon Jung Kim,Debora Pallos,Wilson Roberto Sendyk
Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
22 Treatment of Severely Resorbed Maxilla Due to Peri-Implantitis by Guided Bone Regeneration Using a Customized Allogenic Bone Block: A Case Report
Oliver Blume,Lisa Hoffmann,Phil Donkiewicz,Sabine Wenisch,Michael Back,Jörg Franke,Reinhard Schnettler,Mike Barbeck
Materials. 2017; 10(10): 1213
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
23 Custom-Made Synthetic Scaffolds for Bone Reconstruction: A Retrospective, Multicenter Clinical Study on 15 Patients
Fabrizia Luongo,Francesco Guido Mangano,Aldo Macchi,Giuseppe Luongo,Carlo Mangano
BioMed Research International. 2016; 2016: 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
Search
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
   Abstract
  Introduction
   Materials and Me...
  Results
   Autogenous Bone ...
  Allogenic Bone Block
  Quality Assessment
  Discussion
  Conclusion
   References
   Article Figures
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed5000    
    Printed97    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded819    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 23    

Recommend this journal