Journal List > J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg > v.37(6) > 1032506

J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Dec;37(6):483-489. Korean.
Published online December 27, 2011.  https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2011.37.6.483
Copyright © 2011 by The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
The retrospective study of marginal bone loss around dental implants according to different autogenous bone grafts
Tae-Yi Kim,1 Ye-Mi Kim,2 Ji-Youn Kim,2 Myung-Rae Kim,1,2 and Sun-Jong Kim1,2
1Department of Implantology, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.
2Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.

Corresponding author: Sun-Jong Kim. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, 911-1, Mok-dong, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul 158-050, Korea. TEL: +82-2-2650-5041, FAX: +82-2-2650-5764, Email: sjsj7777@ewha.ac.kr
Received July 11, 2011; Revised August 26, 2011; Accepted October 12, 2011.

Abstract

Introduction

This study examined the cumulative resorption of implants placed in a severely atrophic mandible and analyzed the radiologic bone resorption in the marginal bone, after an autogenous bone graft including both block and particulates that had been harvested from the ramus and iliac crest.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective study was performed on patients who had bone grafts for augmentation followed by implant installation in the mandible area from 2003 to 2008. Twelve patients (6 men and 6 women) who received 34 implants in the augmented sites were evaluated. Cumulative radiologic resorption around the implants was measured immediately, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after implant installation surgery.

Results

The installed implant in grafted bone showed 0.84 mm marginal bone resorption after 3 months and 50% total cumulative resorption after 1 year. The mean marginal bone resorption around the implant installed in the grafted bone was 0.44 mm after 3 months, 0.52 mm after 1 year, after which it stabilized. The implant survival rate was 97% (failed implant was 1/34). Marginal bone resorption of the installed implant in the autogenous onlay block bone grafts was 0.98 mm after 3 months, which was significantly higher than that of a particulated bone graft (0.74 mm) (P<0.05).

Conclusion

An autogenous graft including block type and particulate type is a predictable procedure for the use of dental implants in a severely atrophic mandible. Implant placement in augmented areas show a relatively high survival and minimal bone loss, as revealed by a radiologic evaluation.

Keywords: Dental implants; Bone graft; Bone resorption

Figures


Fig. 1
Autogenous block bone graft, implant installation and functional loading. These figures were collected from different patients who underwent ramal bone graft and implant installation surgery. A. Pre-operative radiography. B. Immediate post-operative radiography after autogenous block bone graft operation. C. Immediate post-operative radiography after implant fixtures installation operation. D. Follow-up radiography after functional loading.
Click for larger image


Fig. 2
Simultaneous implant installation with autogenous particulated bone and xenogenic bone graft. These figures were collected from different patients who underwent particulated autogenous bone and xenogenic bone graft and implant installation surgery. A. Pre-operative radiography. These previous implants were removed at bone graft surgery because of those mobility and pain. B. Immediate post-operative radiography after mixed particulated bone graft and implant installation. C. Follow-up post-operative radiography after functional loading.
Click for larger image


Fig. 3
Delayed implant installation after guided bone regeneration technique with autogenous particulated bone. A. Immediate post-operative radiography after autogenous particulated bone graft. B. Immediate post-operative radiography after 7-month delayed implant installation. C. Follow-up radiography after implant functional loading.
Click for larger image


Fig. 4
Formula for calculation of bone level and height. Average real length was calculated from (A+B/2 ×magnificent rate).
Click for larger image


Fig. 5
Cumulative marginal bone resorption after implant placement in/with the grafted bone.
Click for larger image

Tables


Table 1
Patients' description
Click for larger image


Table 2
Number of implants placed after autogenous bone graft according to time of implant installation
Click for larger image


Table 3
Number of implants according to donors and graft methods
Click for larger image


Table 4
Number of implant systems used in this study
Click for larger image


Table 5
Cumulative marginal bone resorption after implant placement in/with the grafted bone
Click for larger image


Table 6
Cumulative resorption according to donor site (mm)
Click for larger image


Table 7
Cumulative resorption according to type of the grafted bone (mm)
Click for larger image

References
1. Brånemark PI, Lindström J, Hallén O, Breine U, Jeppson PH, Ohman A. Reconstruction of the defective mandible. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1975;9:116–128.
2. Block MS, Degen M. Horizontal ridge augmentation using human mineralized particulate bone: Preliminary results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;62 9 Suppl 2:67–72.
3. Enneking WF, Eady JL, Burchardt H. Autogenous cortical bone grafts in the reconstruction of segmental skeletal defects. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1980;62:1039–1058.
4. Shirota T, Ohno K, Motohashi M, Michi K. Histologic and microradiologic comparison of block and particulate cancellous bone and marrow grafts in reconstructed mandibles being considered for dental implant placement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:15–20.
5. Buser D, Dula K, Hirt HP, Schenk RK. Lateral ridge augmentation using autografts and barrier membranes: a clinical study with 40 partially edentulous patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:420–432.
6. Triplett RG, Schow SR. Autologous bone grafts and endosseous implants: complementary techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:486–494.
7. Raghoebar GM, Batenburg RH, Vissink A, Reintsema H. Augmentation of localized defects of the anterior maxillary ridge with autogenous bone before insertion of implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:1180–1185.
8. Harsha BC, Turvey TA, Powers SK. Use of autogenous cranial bone grafts in maxillofacial surgery: a preliminary report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1986;44:11–15.
9. Keller EE, Van Roekel NB, Desjardins RP, Tolman DE. Prosthetic-surgical reconstruction of the severely resorbed maxilla with iliac bone grafting and tissue-integrated prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987;2:155–165.
10. Listrom RD, Symington JM. Osseointegrated dental mplants in conjunction with bone grafts. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1988;17:116–118.
11. Schwartz-Arad D, Dori S. Intraoral autogenous onlay block bone grafting for implant dentistry. Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim 2002;19:35–39. 77.
12. Smith JD, Abramson M. Membranous vs endochondrial bone autografts. Arch Otolaryngol 1974;99:203–205.
13. Kusiak JF, Zins JE, Whitaker LA. The early revascularization of membranous bone. Plast Reconstr Surg 1985;76:510–516.
14. Marciani RD, Gonty AA, Synhorst JB 3rd, Page LR. Cancellous bone marrow grafts in irradiated dog and monkey mandibles. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1979;47:17–24.
15. Doblin JM, Salkin LM, Mellado JR, Freedman AL, Stein MD. A histologic evaluation of localized ridge augmentation utilizing DFDBA in combination with e-PTFE membranes and stainless steel bone pins in humans. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1996;16:120–129.
16. Misch CM, Misch CE, Resnik RR, Ismail YH. Reconstruction of maxillary alveolar defects with mandibular symphysis grafts for dental implants: a preliminary procedural report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:360–366.
17. Papageorge MB, Karabetou SM, Norris LH. Rehabilitation of patients with reconstructed mandibles using osseointegrated implants: clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:118–126.
18. Keller EE, Tolman D, Eckert S. Endosseous implant and autogenous bone graft reconstruction of mandibular discontinuity: a 12-year longitudinal study of 31 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:767–780.
19. Dragoo MR, Sullivan HC. A clinical and histological evaluation of autogenous iliac bone grafts in humans. I. Wound healing 2 to 8 months. J Periodontol 1973;44:599–613.
20. Marx RE, Carlson ER, Eichstaedt RM, Schimmele SR, Strauss JE, Georgeff KR. Platelet-rich plasma: Growth factor enhancement for bone grafts. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998;85:638–646.
21. Proussaefs P, Lozada J. The use of intraorally harvested autogenous block grafts for vertical alveolar ridge augmentation: a human study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2005;25:351–363.
22. Jeon HR, Kim JW, Kwon HB, Lee DH, Hong JR, Kim CS. The study on the bone resorption rate after vertical alveolar ridge augmentation. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;32:230–234.
23. Aghaloo TL, Moy PK. Which hard tissue augmentation techniques are the most successful in furnishing bony support for implant placement? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22 Suppl:49–70.
24. Jensen J, Sindet-Pedersen S. Autogenous mandibular bone grafts and osseointegrated implants for reconstruction of the severely atrophied maxilla: a preliminary report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;49:1277–1287.
25. Wallace SS, Froum SJ. Effect of maxillary sinus augmentation on the survival of endosseous dental implants. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol 2003;8:328–343.