Primary bone augmentation leads to equally stable marginal tissue conditions comparing the use of xenograft blocks infused with BMP-2 and autogenous bone blocks: A 3D analysis after 3 years

Research Hotspots and Trends of Bone Xenograft in Clinical Procedures: A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis of the Past Decade

BACKGROUND

Bone defect therapy is a common clinical challenge for orthopedic and clinical physicians worldwide, and the therapeutic effect affects the physiological function and healthy life quality of millions of patients. Compared with traditional autogenous bone transplants, bone xenografts are attracting attention due to their advantages of unlimited availability and avoidance of secondary damage. However, there is currently a lack of bibliometric analysis on bone xenograft. This study aimed to use bibliometric methods to analyze the literature on bone xenograft from 2013 to 2023, to explore the current status, hotspots, and future trends of research in this field, and to promote its development and progress.

METHODS

Using the Web of Science Core Collection database, we retrieved and collected publication data related to xenogeneic bone grafting materials worldwide from January 2013 to March 2023. Origin (2021), CiteSpace (6.2.R2 standard), and an online bibliometric platform were used for bibliometric analysis and data visualization.

RESULTS

A total of 3395 documents were retrieved, and 686 eligible papers were selected. The country and institutions with the highest number of publications and centrality were the United States (125 papers, centrality = 0.44) and the University of Zurich (29 papers, centrality = 0.28), respectively. The most cited author was Araujo MG (163 times), and the author with the most significant centrality was Froum SJ (centrality = 0.09). The main keyword clusters were "tissue engineering", "sinus floor elevation", "dental implants", "tooth extraction", and "bone substitutes". The most significant bursting keywords in the last three years were "platelet rich fibrin".

CONCLUSIONS

Research on bone xenograft is steadily growing and will continue to rise. Currently, research hotspots and directions are mainly focused on dental implants related to bone-augmentation techniques and bone tissue engineering. In the future, research hotspots and directions may focus on decellularization technology and investigations involving platelet-rich fibrin.

The Sympathetic Nervous System in Dental Implantology

The sympathetic nervous system plays a vital role in various regulatory mechanisms. These include the well-known fight-or-flight response but also, for example, the processing of external stressors. In addition to many other tissues, the sympathetic nervous system influences bone metabolism. This effect could be highly relevant concerning osseointegration, which is responsible for the long-term success of dental implants. Accordingly, this review aims to summarize the current literature on this topic and to reveal future research perspectives. One in vitro study showed differences in mRNA expression of adrenoceptors cultured on implant surfaces. In vivo, sympathectomy impaired osseointegration in mice, while electrical stimulation of the sympathetic nerves promoted it. As expected, the beta-blocker propranolol improves histological implant parameters and micro-CT measurements. Overall, the present data are considered heterogeneous. However, the available publications reveal the potential for future research and development in dental implantology, which helps to introduce new therapeutic strategies and identify risk factors for dental implant failure.

Horizontal Alveolar Ridge Augmentation with Xenogenic Block Grafts Compared with Autogenous Bone Block Grafts for Implant-retained Rehabilitation: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives

The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to test the 0-hypothesis of no difference in implant treatment outcome after horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation with xenogenic block compared with autogenous bone block.

Material and Methods

A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals until 25^th of January 2022. Comparative and non-comparative studies evaluating horizontal alveolar ridge augmentations with xenogenic blocks were included. Quality and risk of bias were evaluated by Cochrane Collaboration's revised tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

Results

Meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in implant survival rate after more than 6 months of functional implant loading (P = 0.71), no difference in alveolar ridge width (P = 0.07) or gain of alveolar ridge width at re-entry (P = 0.13). Non-comparative studies revealed moderate to high short-term implant survival rate and gain in alveolar ridge width, however, complications including dehiscences, graft exposure and graft failure were observed in several studies.

Conclusions

No significant difference could be identified in short-term implant treatment outcome following horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation using xenogenic block compared with autogenous bone block with the limited data available. A high incidence of healing complications and implant failures necessitates further investigation, as well as long-term results on implant survival rate.

Advances in Clinical and Molecular Research of Biomaterials in Dentistry: The New Era for Dental Applications

Biomaterials in dentistry play a fundamental role in the quality of regeneration mechanisms and in healing following different rehabilitation techniques [...]

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.