The role of cortical perforations in allogeneic block grafting for lateral augmentation in maxilla: A randomized clinical trial

Allogeneic versus autogenous shell technique augmentation procedures: a prospective-observational clinical trial comparing surgical time and complication rates

OBJECTIVES

Autogenous and allogeneic blocks for shell augmentation of the jaw have shown comparable results. This observational clinical study aimed to compare both materials for shell augmentation concerning surgery time and intra- and postoperative complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Bone augmentation with the shell technique using autogenous or allogenous bone was performed in 117 patients with segmental jaw atrophy. The primary study parameter was the surgical time, comparing both materials. Subsequently, intra- and postoperative complications were recorded.

RESULTS

Allogeneic (n = 60), autogenous (n = 52), or both materials (n = 5) were used. The use of allogeneic material led to a significantly shorter operation time (p < 0.001). A more experienced surgeon needed significantly less time than a less experienced surgeon (p < 0.001). An increasing number of bone shells (p < 0.001), an additional sinus floor elevation, and intraoperative complications also significantly increased the operation time (p = 0.001). Combining allogeneic and autogenous shells (p = 0.02) and simultaneous sinus floor elevation (p = 0.043) significantly impacted intraoperative complications. No correlations were found between the included variables for postoperative complications (all p > 0.05). In total, 229 implants were inserted after a healing time of 4-6 months, with a survival of 99.6% after a mean follow-up duration of 9 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the autogenous technique, allogeneic shell augmentation has a shorter surgical time and a similar rate of intra- and postoperative complications as autogenous bone. Together with its promising clinical results, this technique can be recommended.

The allogeneic shell technique for alveolar ridge augmentation: a multicenter case series and experiences of more than 300 cases

PURPOSE

Allogeneic cortical bone plates (CP) might be used for alveolar ridge augmentation as an alternative to autogenous grafts (AG) and bone substitutes (BS). We report about a multicenter case series and our experiences of more than 300 cases using CP and the shell technique for reconstruction of the alveolar process to illustrate surgical key steps, variations, and complication management.

METHODS

Different types of alveolar ridge defects were augmented using the shell technique via CP. The space between the CP and the alveolar bone was filled with either autogenous or allogeneic granules (AUG, ALG) or a mixture of both. Implants were placed after 4-6 months. Microscopic and histological assessments were performed. In addition, space filling using AUG, ALG and bovine BS was discussed.

RESULTS

Scanning electron microscopy demonstrated the compact cortical structure of CP and the porous structure of ALG allowing micro-vessel ingrowth and bone remodeling. Histological assessment demonstrated sufficient bone remodeling and graft resorption after 4-6 months. In total, 372 CP cases and 656 implants were included to data analysis. The mean follow-up period was about 3.5 years. Four implants failed, while all implant failures were caused by peri-implantitis. Next, 30 CP complications were seen, while in 26 CP complications implant placement was possible. CP rehydration, stable positioning by adjusting screws, smoothing of sharp edges, and a tension-free wound closure were identified as relevant success factors. Space filling using ALG and a mixture of AUG/ALG resulted in sufficient bone remodeling, graft resorption and stability of the augmented bone.

CONCLUSIONS

CP and the shell technique is appropriate for alveolar ridge augmentation with adequate bone remodeling and low complication rates. Allografts can prevent donor site morbidity and therefore may decrease discomfort for the patient.

Survival Rates of Dental Implants in Autogenous and Allogeneic Bone Blocks: A Systematic Review

Background and Objectives: Preliminary studies emphasize the similar performance of autogenous bone blocks (AUBBs) and allogeneic bone blocks (ALBBs) in pre-implant surgery; however, most of these studies include limited subjects or hold a low level of evidence. The purpose of this review is to test the hypothesis of indifferent implant survival rates (ISRs) in AUBB and ALBB and determine the impact of various material-, surgery- and patient-related confounders and predictors. Materials and Methods: The national library of medicine (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were screened for studies reporting the ISRs of implants placed in AUBB and ALBB with ≥10 participants followed for ≥12 months from January 1995 to November 2021. The review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed via several scoring tools, dependent on the study design. Means of sub-entities were presented as violin plots. Results: An electronic data search resulted in the identification of 9233 articles, of which 100 were included in the quantitative analysis. No significant difference (p = 0.54) was found between the ISR of AUBB (96.23 ± 5.27%; range: 75% to 100%; 2195 subjects, 6861 implants) and that of ALBB (97.66 ± 2.68%; range: 90.1% to 100%; 1202 subjects, 3434 implants). The ISR in AUBB was increased in blocks from intraoral as compared to extraoral donor sites (p = 0.0003), partially edentulous as compared to totally edentulous (p = 0.0002), as well as in patients younger than 45 as compared to those older (p = 0.044), cortical as compared to cortico-cancellous blocks (p = 0.005) and in delayed implantations within three months as compared to immediate implantations (p = 0.018). The ISR of ALBB was significantly increased in processed as compared to fresh-frozen ALBB (p = 0.004), but also in horizontal as compared to vertical augmentations (p = 0.009). Conclusions: The present findings widely emphasize the feasibility of achieving similar ISRs with AUBB and ALBB applied for pre-implant bone grafting. ISRs were negatively affected in sub-entities linked to more extensive augmentation procedures such as bone donor site and dentition status. The inclusion and pooling of literature with a low level of evidence, the absence of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing AUBB and ALBB and the limited count of comparative studies with short follow-ups increases the risk of bias and complicates data interpretation. Consequently, further long-term comparative studies are needed.