Lateral ridge augmentation with two different ratios of deproteinized bovine bone and autogenous bone: A 2‐year follow‐up of a randomized and controlled trial. (28th June 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mordenfeld, Arne; Aludden, Hanna; Starch‐Jensen, Thomas
• Is Part Of: Clinical implant dentistry and related research. Volume 19:Number 5(2017:Oct.)
• Page Start: 884
• Page End: 894
• Publication Date: 2017-06-28
• Subjects: alveolar ridge augmentation -- bone regeneration -- bone substitutes -- dental implants -- histology -- radiology -- randomized controlled trial; Dental implants -- Periodicals; Dental Implantation -- Periodicals; Dental Implants -- Periodicals; 617.693
• DOI: 10.1111/cid.12512
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1523-0899

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The optimal ratio of deproteinized bovine bone (DPBB) and autogenous bone (AB) for lateral augmentation is presently unknown. Purpose: To evaluate implant treatment outcome and radiological graft changes after lateral ridge augmentation with 2 different mixtures of DPBB and AB, 2 years after functional loading. Materials and methods: Thirteen patients were included in a split mouth, randomized, controlled trial. Four partially edentulous and 10 totally edentulous jaws with an alveolar ridge width of <4 mm were augmented with a graft mixture of 90:10 (DPBB:AB) on one side and 60:40 (DPBB:AB) on the contra lateral side. Graft width changes were measured on CBCT scans at different time points. Implant survival and success rates were calculated. Resonance frequency analysis and marginal bone measurements were performed after 2 years of loading. Results: The survival rate was 94.4% for implants installed in the 90:10 and 100% for implants installed in the 60:40. There were no statistically significant differences in survival rate or success rate between the mixtures. The width was 5.7 mm and 6.2 mm, respectively for the 2 groups without any significant difference between the groups after 2 years of loading. There was a significant difference in graft reduction between the groups, 54.4% (90:10) and 37.5% (60:40), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in implant stability or marginal bone levels at any time points. Conclusions: The 2 treatment modalities may be successfully used for lateral ridge augmentation and presented good clinical results after 2 years of loading. However, long‐term RCTs are required before final conclusions can be provided on this specific topic.