Fresh-Frozen Bone Allografts in Maxillary Alveolar Augmentation: Analysis of Complications, Adverse Outcomes, and Implant Survival

Risk Factors for Complications Following Staged Alveolar Ridge Augmentation and Dental Implantation: A Retrospective Evaluation of 151 Cases with Allogeneic and 70 Cases with Autogenous Bone Blocks

Purpose: the aim of this study was to identify potential risk factors favoring complications by assessing the number and types of complications associated with allogeneic or autogenous bone blocks applied as onlay grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation prior to implantation. Methods: A retrospective chart review on the success of 151 allogeneic and 70 autogenous bone blocks in a cohort of 164 consecutive patients, who were treated over a period of 6 years by the same surgeon, was conducted. Statistical conclusions were based on ROC curves and multiple logistic regression models. Results: Complications were observed more frequently with autogenous bone blocks (14 out of 70 cases; 20%) compared to allogeneic bone blocks (12 out of 151 cases; 7.9%; p = 0.013). However, these complications were minor and did not impact the successful dental rehabilitation. In a multiple logistic regression model, the risk of a complication was increased by the use of an autogenous bone block (OR = 3.2; p = 0.027), smoking (OR = 4.8; p = 0.007), vertical augmentation above a threshold of 2.55 mm (OR = 5.0; p = 0.002), and over-contouring (OR = 15.3; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Overall, the complication rate of ridge augmentations carried out with autogenous or allogeneic bone blocks was low. Despite previous recommendations, over-contouring and a vertical augmentation above a threshold of 2.55 mm should be avoided.

Complications in bone-grafting procedures: Classification and management

Bone-regenerative interventions aiming to restore deficient alveolar ridges, such as the use of block grafts or through the application of guided bone-regeneration principles, have reported positive outcomes in the published scientific literature. These interventions, however, are invasive, and hence, intraoperative and/or postoperative complications may occur. The types of complications and their severity may vary from the exposure of the biomaterial (membrane or graft) to postsurgical infections, neurosensorial disturbances, occurrence of hemorrhage, and pain, etc. The aim of the present narrative review was to search the available scientific evidence concerning the incidence of these complications, their effect on treatment outcomes, their clinical management and, finally, strategies aimed at prevention. Exposure of the barrier membrane or the block graft is the most common complication associated with oral regenerative interventions. To manage these complications, depending on the extent of the exposure and the presence or absence of concomitant infections, therapeutic measures may vary, from the topical application of antiseptics to the removal of the barrier membrane or the block graft. Regardless of their treatment, the occurrence of these complications has been associated with patient selection, with compliant patients (eg, nonsmokers) having a lower reported incidence of complications. Similarly, surgical factors such as correct flap elevation and a tensionless closure are of obvious importance. Finally, to prevent the incidence of complications, it appears prudent to utilize whenever possible less invasive surgical interventions.

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.

High Potential of Bacterial Adhesion on Block Bone Graft Materials

Bone graft infections represent a challenge in daily clinics, resulting in increased patient discomfort and graft removal. The aim of this study was to investigate the initial adhesion of five representative pathogens on three different block bone graft materials (xenogeneic, alloplastic and allogeneic) and to assess if chlorhexidine (CHX) can effectively control the initial bacterial adhesion. Three different block bone grafting materials (Tutobone®, Endobon® and human spongiosa) were incubated with Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans, Enterococcus faecalis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the presence or absence of 0.2% CHX solution. Bacterial adhesion was assessed by the direct counting of the colony-forming units (CFUs) and visualized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Overall, the selected bacterial species adhered successfully to all tested bone replacement scaffolds, which showed similar bacterial counts. The lg CFU values ranged from 5.29 ± 0.14 to 5.48 ± 0.72 for E. coli, from 4.37 ± 0.62 to 5.02 ± 0.48 for S. aureus, from 4.92 ± 0.34 to 4.95 ± 0.21 for S. mutans, from 4.97 ± 0.40 to 5.22 ± 0.13 for E. faecalis and from 4.23 ± 0.54 to 4.58 ± 0.26 for P. aeruginosa. CHX did not interfere with initial microbial adhesion, and yet it killed all adhered bacterial cells. Thus, CHX can be used to prevent subsequent biofilm infections.

Horizontal Alveolar Ridge Augmentation with Allogeneic Bone Block Graft Compared with Autogenous Bone Block Graft: a Systematic Review

Objectives

The objective of the present systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in implant treatment outcome after horizontal ridge augmentation with allogeneic bone block compared with autogenous bone block.

Material and Methods

A MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library search in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals was conducted including human studies published in English through March 13, 2019. Comparative and non-comparative studies evaluating horizontal ridge augmentation with allogeneic bone block were included. Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate risk of bias.

Results

One comparative study with high quality and 12 non-comparative studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Considerable heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis from being performed. The comparative retrospective short-term study demonstrated no significant difference in implant treatment outcome between the two treatment modalities. Non-comparative long-term studies revealed high implant survival, gain in alveolar ridge width and bone regeneration with allogeneic bone block. However, non-comparative studies disclosed high incidence of complications including dehiscence, exposure of allogeneic bone block and partial or total loss of the grafts.

Conclusions

There seemed to be no difference in implant treatment outcome after horizontal ridge augmentation with allogeneic bone block compared with autogenous bone block. However, increased risk of complications was frequently reported with allogeneic bone block.

Potential of autogenous or fresh-frozen allogeneic bone block grafts for bone remodelling: a histological, histometrical, and immunohistochemical analysis in rabbits

Our aim was to compare the wound healing of autogenous bone grafts with that of fresh-frozen allogeneic block bone in rabbits. We used 25 animals. One was killed before the experiment to provide the allogeneic bone, and the remainder were killed at four time points (n=6 in each group). On histometrical analysis there was a significant difference between the two groups only at 45days and between 15 and 45days in the intergroup analysis. However, there was significantly more revascularisation (p<0.05), resorption (p<0.05), and bony replacement (p<0.05) in the autogenous group in the immunohistochemical analysis. In later periods, the autogenous bone was replaced by newly-formed bone in all samples, whereas it was always possible to find regions of devitalised bone in the fresh-frozen allogeneic bone grafts. Autogenous grafts were completely replaced whereas, in the fresh- frozen allogeneic grafts, we found acellular tissue that had been incorporated into the receptor bed interface during the later evaluation times.