Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (대한구강악안면외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Volumetric stability of autogenous bone graft with mandibular body bone: cone-beam computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstruction analysis

  • Lee, Hyeong-Geun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Pusan National University Dental Hospital, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Kim, Yong-Deok (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Pusan National University Dental Hospital, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
  • Received : 2015.03.12
  • Accepted : 2015.06.02
  • Published : 2015.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to estimate the volumetric change of augmented autobone harvested from mandibular body cortical bone, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and three-dimensional reconstruction. In addition, the clinical success of dental implants placed 4 to 6 months after bone grafting was also evaluated. Materials and Methods: Ninety-five patients (48 men and 47 women) aged 19 to 72 years were included in this study. A total of 128 graft sites were evaluated. The graft sites were divided into three parts: anterior and both posterior regions of one jaw. All patients included in the study were scheduled for an onlay graft and implantation using a two-stage procedure. The dental implants were inserted 4 to 6 months after the bone graft. Volumetric stability was evaluated by serial CBCT images. Results: No major complications were observed for the donor sites. A total of 128 block bones were used to augment severely resorbed alveolar bone. Only 1 of the 128 bone grafts was resorbed by more than half, and that was due to infection. In total, the average amount of residual grafted bone after resorption at the recipient sites was $74.6%{\pm}8.4%$. Conclusion: Volumetric stability of mandibular body autogenous block grafts is predictable. The procedure is satisfactory for patients who want dental implants regardless of atrophic alveolar bone.

Keywords

References

  1. Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Branemark PI, Jemt T. Longterm follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:347-59.
  2. Jemt T, Lekholm U, Adell R. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous patients: a preliminary study on 876 consecutively placed fixtures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:211-7.
  3. McAllister BS, Haghighat K. Bone augmentation techniques. J Periodontol 2007;78:377-96. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2007.060048
  4. Barone A, Covani U. Maxillary alveolar ridge reconstruction with nonvascularized autogenous block bone: clinical results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:2039-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2007.05.017
  5. Sjostrom M, Lundgren S, Sennerby L. A histomorphometric comparison of the bone graft-titanium interface between interpositional and onlay/inlay bone grafting techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:52-62.
  6. Reinert S, Konig S, Bremerich A, Eufinger H, Krimmel M. Stability of bone grafting and placement of implants in the severely atrophic maxilla. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;41:249-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-4356(03)00078-0
  7. Zouhary KJ. Bone graft harvesting from distant sites: concepts and techniques. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2010;22:301-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coms.2010.04.007
  8. Brugnami F, Caiazzo A, Leone C. Local intraoral autologous bone harvesting for dental implant treatment: alternative sources and criteria of choice. Keio J Med 2009;58:24-8. https://doi.org/10.2302/kjm.58.24
  9. Misch CM. Maxillary autogenous bone grafting. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2011;23:229-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coms.2011.01.003
  10. Greenberg JA, Wiltz MJ, Kraut RA. Augmentation of the anterior maxilla with intraoral onlay grafts for implant placement. Implant Dent 2012;21:21-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3182435ffd
  11. Zins JE, Whitaker LA. Membranous versus endochondral bone: implications for craniofacial reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1983;72:778-85. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-198312000-00005
  12. Borstlap WA, Heidbuchel KL, Freihofer HP, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Early secondary bone grafting of alveolar cleft defects. A comparison between chin and rib grafts. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1990;18:201-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1010-5182(05)80411-1
  13. Ozaki W, Buchman SR. Volume maintenance of onlay bone grafts in the craniofacial skeleton: micro-architecture versus embryologic origin. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998;102:291-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199808000-00001
  14. Rosenthal AH, Buchman SR. Volume maintenance of inlay bone grafts in the craniofacial skeleton. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;112:802-11. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000069713.62687.F5
  15. Keller EE, Tolman DE, Eckert S. Surgical-prosthodontic reconstruction of advanced maxillary bone compromise with autogenous onlay block bone grafts and osseointegrated endosseous implants: a 12-year study of 32 consecutive patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:197-209.
  16. Nystrom E, Legrell PE, Forssell A, Kahnberg KE. Combined use of bone grafts and implants in the severely resorbed maxilla. Postoperative evaluation by computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995;24:20-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0901-5027(05)80851-3
  17. Waitzman AA, Posnick JC, Armstrong DC, Pron GE. Craniofacial skeletal measurements based on computed tomography: part I. Accuracy and reproducibility. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1992;29:112-7. https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569(1992)029<0112:CSMBOC>2.3.CO;2
  18. Dasmah A, Thor A, Ekestubbe A, Sennerby L, Rasmusson L. Particulate vs. block bone grafts: three-dimensional changes in graft volume after reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla, a 2-year radiographic follow-up. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2012;40:654-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2011.10.032
  19. Johansson B, Grepe A, Wannfors K, Hirsch JM. A clinical study of changes in the volume of bone grafts in the atrophic maxilla. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001;30:157-61. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600601
  20. Honma K, Kobayashi T, Nakajima T, Hayasi T. Computed tomographic evaluation of bone formation after secondary bone grafting of alveolar clefts. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;57:1209-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(99)90488-3
  21. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. London: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2008.
  22. Razi T, Niknami M, Alavi Ghazani F. Relationship between Hounsfield unit in CT scan and gray scale in CBCT. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2014;8:107-10.
  23. Iizuka T, Smolka W, Hallermann W, Mericske-Stern R. Extensive augmentation of the alveolar ridge using autogenous calvarial split bone grafts for dental rehabilitation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:607-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01043.x
  24. Misch CM. Comparison of intraoral donor sites for onlay grafting prior to implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:767-76.
  25. Smolka W, Eggensperger N, Carollo V, Ozdoba C, Iizuka T. Changes in the volume and density of calvarial split bone grafts after alveolar ridge augmentation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:149-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01182.x
  26. Burchardt H. The biology of bone graft repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1983;(174):28-42.
  27. von Arx T, Buser D. Horizontal ridge augmentation using autogenous block grafts and the guided bone regeneration technique with collagen membranes: a clinical study with 42 patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:359-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01234.x
  28. Dasmah A, Thor A, Ekestubbe A, Sennerby L, Rasmusson L. Marginal bone-level alterations at implants installed in block versus particulate onlay bone grafts mixed with platelet-rich plasma in atrophic maxilla. a prospective 5-year follow-up study of 15 patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013;15:7-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00377.x

Cited by

  1. Comparison of Bone Resorption Rates after Intraoral Block Bone and Guided Bone Regeneration Augmentation for the Reconstruction of Horizontally Deficient Maxillary Alveolar Ridges vol.2016, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/4987437
  2. Virtual Surgery Planning and Three-Dimensional Printing Template to Customize Bone Graft Toward Implant Insertion vol.28, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000003386
  3. The rate and stability of mandibular block bone graft in recent 5 years vol.39, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-017-0118-0
  4. Lateral Ridge Augmentation with Decalcified Cortical Bone Plate for Implant Site Preparation Resulting from Ridge Resorption vol.9, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10012-1181
  5. Evaluation of autogenous mandibular bone block resorption in horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation vol.98, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.17116/stomat20199806130
  6. Research of Mental Autogenous Bone Block Grafts for the Implantation of Anterior Alveolar Ridges and CBCT Measure vol.10, pp.7, 2015, https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2020.107228
  7. Resorption of retromolar bone grafts after alveolar ridge augmentation—volumetric changes after 12 months assessed by CBCT analysis vol.7, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-00285-9