Dpi

PDF

Clinical considerations for optimizing results in bone grafting: Part I.

Claudio Ferreira Nóia, José Marcelo Vargas Pinto, Bruno Costa Martins de Sá, Paulo Hemerson de Moraes, Rafael Ortega Lopes

Introduction: Due to lack of an ideal bone substitute, which promotes reconstruction of different types of bone defects with high predictability, high success rates and preferably without 108 Dental Pres Implantol. 2014 July-Sept;8(3):96-108 Nóia CF, Pinto JMV, Sá BCM, Moraes PH, Lopes RO 1. Nóia CF, Rodríguez-Chessa JG, Chaves Netto HDM, Ortega-Lopes R, Mazzonetto R. Relación entre éxito y fracaso en los procedimientos implantológicos: análisis retrospectiva de 06 años. Acta Odontol Venezolana. 2010;48(4):1-6. 2. Nóia CF, Chaves Netto HDM, Ortega-Lopes R, Rodríguez-Chessa JG, Mazzonetto R. Uso de enxerto ósseo autógeno nas reconstruções da cavidade bucal. Análise restrospectiva de 07 anos. Rev Port Estomatol Cir Maxillofac. 2009;50(4):221-5. 3. Mazzonetto R. Reconstruções em Implantodontia: protocolos clínicos para o sucesso e previsibilidade. Nova Odessa: Napoleão; 2008. 4. Mazzonetto R, Chaves Netto HDM, Nascimento FFAO, Ortega-Lopes R, Nóia CF. Enxertos ósseos em Implantodontia. Nova Odessa: Napoleão; 2012. 5. Nóia CF, Ferreira-Nóia C, Marques tR, Pinto JMV, Ortega-Lopes R. Inluência do gênero e da idade no processo de reparo ósseo. Estudo radiográico prospectivo em 30 pacientes. implantNews. 2012;9(6a-PBa):189-94. 6. Keller ee, eckert se, tolman De. Maxillary antral and nasal one-stage inlay composite bone graft: preliminary report on 30 recipient sites. J oral Maxillofac surg. 1994;52(5):438-47. 7. Becktor JP, isaksson s, sennerby L. survival analysis of endosseous implants in grafted and nongrafted edentulous maxillae. int J oral Maxillofac implants. 2004;19(1):107-15. 8. Block Ms, Kent JN, Kallukaran FU, thunthy K, Weinberg r. Bone maintenance 5 to 10 years after sinus grafting. J oral Maxillofac surg. 1998;56:706-14. 9. Branemark Pi, Lindstrom J, Hallén o, Breine U, Jeppson P-H, ohman a. reconstruction of the defective mandible. scand J Plast reconstr surg. 1975;9(2):116-28. 10. Misch CM, Misch Ce. the repair of localized severe ridge defects for implant placement using mandibular bone grafts. implant Dent. 1995;4(4):261-7. 11. Cordaro L, torsello F, accorsi ribeiro C, Liberatore M, Mirisola di torresanto V. inlayonlay grafting for the three-dimensional reconstruction of the posterior atrophic maxilla with mandibular bone. int J oral Maxillofac surg. 2010;39(4):350-7. 12. acocella a, Bertolai r, Nissan J, sacco r. Clinical, histological and histomorphometric evaluation of the healing of mandibular ramus bone block grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation before implant placement. J Cranio-Maxillo-Fac surg 2010;38(2):22-30. 13. Nóia CF, oliveira NK, Ferreira-Nóia C, ortega-Lopes r, Mazzonetto r. Utilização da crista ilíaca nas reconstruções ósseas da cavidade oral: relato de caso. rev Dental Press Periodontia implantol. 2011;5(2):74-82. 14. Monje a, Monje F, Hernandes-alfaro F, gonzález-garcia r, suarez F, galindo-Moreno P, et al. Horizontal bone augmentation using autogenous block grafts and particulate xenograft in the severe atrophic maxillary anterior ridges. J oral implantol. 2014 apr 4. [epub ahead of print]. 15. Maiorana C, Beretta M, Batista grossi g, santoro F, scott Herford a, Nagurski H, et al. Histomorphometric evaluation of anorganic bovine bone coverage to reduce autogenous grafts resorption: preliminary results. open Dent J. 2011;25(5):71-8. 16. Cosso Mg, Brito rB Jr, Piattelli a, shibli Ja, Zenóbio eg. Volumetric dimensional changes of autogenous bone and the mixture of hydroxyapatite and autogenous bone graft in humans maxillary sinus augmentation. a multislice tomography study. Clin oral implants res. 2013 sep 15. doi: 10.1111/ clr.12261. [epub ahead of print]. 17. Kuhl s, gotz H, Brochhausen C, Jakse N, Filippi a, d’Hoedt B, et al. the inluence of substitute materials on bone density after maxillary sinus augmentation. a microcomputed tomography study. int J oral Maxilofac implants. 2012;27(6):1541-6. 18. Kuhl s, Brochhausen C, gotz H, Filippi a,Payer M, d’Hoedt B, et al. the inluence of bone substitute materials on the bone volume after maxillary sinus augmentation. a microcomputed tomography study. Clin oral investig. 2013;17(2):543-51. 19. richart D, slater JJ, Meijer HJ, Vissink a, raghoebar gM. Maxillary sinus lift with solely autogenous bone compared to a combination of autogenous bone and growth factors or (solely) bone substitutes. a systematic review. int J oral Maxillofac surg. 2012;41(2):160-7. 20. De-azevedo-Vaz sL, Vasconcelos KF, Neves Fs, Melo sL, Campos Ps, Haiter-Neto F. Detection of periimplant fenestration and dehiscence with the use of two scan modes and the smallest voxel sizes of a cone-beam computed tomography device. oral surg oral Med oral Pathol oral radiol. 2013;115(1):121-7. 21. Balaji a, Nesaline JP, Mohamed JB, Chandrasekaran sC. Placement of endosseous implant in infected alveolar socket with large fenestration defect: a comparative case report. J indian soc Periodontol. 2010;14(4):270-4. 22. Pereira-Filho Va, Hochuli-Vieira e, gabrielli MaC, Queiroz tP, Chávez oFM. Distração osteogênica mandibular para instalação de implantes: relato de caso. rev Cir traumatol Buco-Maxilo-Fac. 2007;7(1):51-8. 23. triplett rg, schow sr. autologous bone grafts and endosseous implants: complementary techniques. J oral Maxillofac surg. 1996;54(4):486-94. 24. Lehman H, Casap N. rapid-prototype titanium bone forms for vertical alveolar augmentation using bone morphogenetic protein-2: design and treatment planning objectives. int J oral Maxillofac implants. 2014;29(2):259-66. 25. Nóia CF, ortega-Lopes r, Mazzonetto r, Chaves Netto HD. segmental osteotomy with interpositional bone grafting in the posterior maxillary region. int J oral Maxillofac surg. 2012;41(12):1563-5. 26. Clavero J, Lundgren s. ramus or chin grafts for maxillary sinus inlay and local onlay augmentation: comparison of donor site morbidity and complications. Clin implant Dent relat res. 2003;5(3):154-60. 27. Matsumoto Ma, Nary Filho H, Francischone Ce, Consolaro a. Microscopic analysis of reconstructed maxillary alveolar ridges using autogenous bone grafts from the chin and iliac crest. int J oral Maxillofac implants. 2002;17(4):507-16. 28. ortega-Lopes r, Nóia CF, Chaves Neto HDM, andrade VC, Cidade CPV, Mazzonetto r. otimização em reconstrução total de maxila através da modiicação estrutural do enxerto e diminuição do intervalo cirúrgico. implantNews. 2012;9(3):383-92. 29. Beltrán V, engelke W, Prieto r, Valdiviagandur i, Navarro P, Manzanares MC, et al. augmentation of intramembranous bone in rabbit calvaria using an occlusive barrier in combination with Demineralized Bone Matrix (DBM): a pilot study. int J surg. 2014;12(5):378-83. 30. stabile gaV. avaliação retrospectiva de oito anos dos procedimentos implantodônticos associados ou não a procedimentos reconstrutivos realizados na Área de Cirurgia Buco-Maxilo-Facial da Faculdade de odontologia de Piracicaba [dissertação]. Piracicaba (sP): Universidade estadual de Campinas; 2006. REFERÊNCIAS: the need for a donor site from the patient, it is known that obtaining excellent results in bone grafting represents a real challenge to surgeons even nowadays. Objective: Thus, the aim of this study was to address some aspects that directly influence outcomes in bone grafting, namely: defect type, choice of bone substitute, biological limits of surgical techniques and the microarchitecture of grafts, particularly because properly approaching these factors enables clinicians to obtain excellent clinical results.

Keywords: Alveolar ridge augmentation. Bone resorption. Dental implants.

How to cite: Nóia CF, Pinto JMV, Sá BCM, Moraes PH, Lopes RO. Clinical considerations for optimizing results in bone grafting: Part I. Dental Press Implantol. 2014 July-Sept;8(3):96-108. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14436/2237-650X.8.3.096-108.oar

Tuesday, October 17, 2017 16:43