Graft incorporation and implant osseointegration following the use of autologous and fresh-frozen allogeneic block bone grafts for lateral ridge augmentation

Author(s)

Spin-Neto, Rubens ^{[1, 2, 3]} ; Stavropoulos, Andreas ^[4] ; Coletti, Felipe Leite ^{[1, 2, 3]} ; Faeda, Rafael Silveira ^[5] ; Violin Dias Pereira, Luis Antonio ^[6] ; Marcantonio, Jr., Elcio ^{[1, 2, 3]}

Affiliation

^[1] UNESP Univ Estadual Paulista, Araraquara Dent Sch, Dept Periodontol, Sao Paulo - Brazil

^[2] Aarhus Univ, Dept Dent Oral Radiol, DK-8000 Aarhus - Denmark

^[3] Aarhus Univ, Sch Dent, Dept Dent Periodontol, DK-8000 Aarhus - Denmark

^[4] CEPBR, Athens - Greece

^[5] UNIARA Araraquara Univ, Dept Implantol, Sao Paulo - Brazil

^[6] UNICAMP State Univ Campinas, Inst Biol, Dept Histol & Embryol, Sao Paulo - Brazil

• Document type: Journal article
• Source: Clinical Oral Implants Research; v. 25, n. 2, p. 226-233, FEB 2014.
• Web of Science Citations: 36

Abstract

ObjectivesTo compare autogenous bone (AT) and fresh-frozen allogeneic bone (AL) in terms of histomorphometrical graft incorporation and implant osseointegration after grafting for lateral ridge augmentation in humans. Materials and methodsThirty-four patients were treated with either AL (20 patients) or AT (14 patients) onlay grafts. During implant installation surgery 6months after grafting, cylindrical biopsies were harvested perpendicularly to the lateral aspect of the augmented alveolar ridge. Additionally, titanium mini-implants were installed in the grafted regions, also perpendicularly to the ridge; these were biopsied during second-stage surgery. Histological/histomorphometric analysis was performed using decalcified and non-decalcified sections. ResultsHistological analysis revealed areas of necrotic bone (NcB) occasionally in contact with or completely engulfed by newly formed vital bone (VB) in both AT and AL groups (55.927.6 vs. 43.1 +/- 20.3, respectively; P=0.19). Statistically significant larger amounts of VB (27.6 +/- 17.5 vs. 8.4 +/- 4.9, respectively; P=0.0002) and less soft connective tissue (ST) (16.4 +/- 15.6 vs. 48.4 +/- 18.1, respectively; P0.0001) were seen for AT compared with AL. No significant differences were observed between the groups regarding both bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and the bone area between implant threads (BA) on the mini-implant biopsies. ConclusionAllogeneic bone block grafts may be an option in cases where a limited amount of augmentation is needed, and the future implant can be expected confined within the inner aspect of the bone block. However, the clinical impact of the relatively poor graft incorporation on the long-term performance of oral implants placed in AL grafts remains obscure. (AU)

• FAPESP's process: 08/09207-9 - Bone allografts in humans: immunologic, tomographic, histological and histometrical evaluation of their incorporation and capacity of implants osseointegration
• Grantee: Elcio Marcantonio Junior
• Support Opportunities: Regular Research Grants