PMID- 24977257
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20140923
LR  - 20220330
IS  - 1756-2406 (Print)
IS  - 1756-2406 (Linking)
VI  - 7 Suppl 2
DP  - 2014 Summer
TI  - Augmentation procedures using bone substitute materials or autogenous bone - a 
      systematic review and meta-analysis.
PG  - S219-34
AB  - AIMS: Bone substitute materials (BSM) are described as a reasonable alternative 
      to autologous bone (AB) to simplify the grafting procedure. In a systematic 
      review and meta-analysis, the influence of BSM compared to AB on treatment 
      success in augmentation procedures of the edentulous jaw was analysed. MATERIAL 
      AND METHODS: Literature analysis resulted in only two studies addressing 
      reconstruction of the totally edentulous jaw using BSM. Therefore the literature 
      analysis was extended to partially and totally edentulous jaws. The following 
      augmentation procedures were analysed: maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) 
      and vertical and/or lateral alveolar ridge augmentation; guided bone regeneration 
      (minor and contained defects) were excluded. Meta-analysis was implemented using 
      the literature from the years 2000 to early 2014 and only studies with a mean 
      follow-up of at least 10 months were included. RESULTS: After screening 843 
      abstracts from the electronic database, 52 studies in qualitative and 14 in 
      quantitative synthesis were included. In studies examining MSFA, the mean implant 
      survival rate was 98.6% +/- 2.6 for BSM, 88.6 +/- 4.1% for BSM mixed with AB and 97.4 
      +/- 2.2% for AB alone. For MSFA, meta-analysis showed a trend towards a higher 
      implant survival when using BSM compared to AB, however the difference was not 
      statistically significant ([OR], 0.59; [CI], 0.33-1.03). No statistically 
      significant difference in implant survival for MSFA between BSM mixed with AB and 
      AB was seen ([OR], 0.84; [CI], 0.5-1.42). Concerning ridge augmentation, the mean 
      implant survival rate was 97.4 +/- 2.5% for BSM, 100 +/- 0% for BSM mixed with AB and 
      98.6 +/- 2.9% for AB alone. Metaanalysis revealed no statistically significant 
      difference in implant survival for ridge augmentation using BSM or AB ([OR], 
      1.85; [CI], 0.38 to 8.94). For BSM mixed with AB versus AB alone, a meta-analysis 
      was not possible due to missing data. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitation of the 
      meta-analytical approach taken, implant survival seems to be independent of the 
      biomaterial used in MSFA and alveolar ridge augmentation. Therefore, based on the 
      current literature, there is no evidence that AB is superior to BSM. The 
      conclusions are limited by the fact that influence of defect size, augmented 
      volume and regenerative capacity of the defects is not well described in the 
      respective literature.
FAU - Al-Nawas, Bilal
AU  - Al-Nawas B
FAU - Schiegnitz, Eik
AU  - Schiegnitz E
LA  - eng
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Meta-Analysis
PT  - Review
PT  - Systematic Review
PL  - England
TA  - Eur J Oral Implantol
JT  - European journal of oral implantology
JID - 101473719
RN  - 0 (Bone Substitutes)
RN  - 0 (Dental Implants)
SB  - IM
MH  - Alveolar Ridge Augmentation/*methods
MH  - Autografts/*transplantation
MH  - Bone Substitutes/*therapeutic use
MH  - Bone Transplantation/*methods
MH  - Dental Implants
MH  - Humans
MH  - Jaw, Edentulous/surgery
MH  - Sinus Floor Augmentation/methods
MH  - Survival Analysis
EDAT- 2014/07/01 06:00
MHDA- 2014/09/24 06:00
CRDT- 2014/07/01 06:00
PHST- 2014/07/01 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2014/07/01 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2014/09/24 06:00 [medline]
AID - 855813 [pii]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014 Summer;7 Suppl 2:S219-34.