Clinical outcome of autogenous bone blocks or guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges
Identifieur interne : 001D25 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001D24; suivant : 001D26Clinical outcome of autogenous bone blocks or guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges
Auteurs : Matteo Chiapasco ; Silvio Abati ; Eugenio Romeo ; Giorgio VogelSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 1999-08.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to analyse the clinical outcome of two different surgical methods for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges before implant installation: guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes and autologous bone chips or grafting of autologous bone blocks without e‐PTFE membranes. Thirty partially edentulous patients, presenting insufficient bone width (less than 4 mm) in the edentulous sites for installation of screw‐type titanium implants, were selected and assigned to two different treatment modalities. Fifteen patients (group 1) were treated by means of guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes supported by stainless steel wews and autologous bone chips taken from intraoral sites. Fifteen patients (group 2) were treated by means of autologous bone blocks taken from intraoral or extraoral sites (anterior iliac crest and calvaria) and stabilized with titanium microscrews. Six to 8 months later, during re‐entry for implant insertion, the gain of ridge width obtained was measured. In group 1 the average amount of bone gain was 2.7 mm, whereas in group 2 the value was 4.0 mm. Five to 6 months after implant placement prosthetic rehabilitation was started. The mean follow‐up after prosthetic load has been 22.4 months. Success rates of implants according to Albrektsson criteria has been 93.3% in group 1, and 90.9% in group 2. Although a statistical comparison between the two treatment modalities may not be feasible, due to the bias resulting from the choice of treatment by the clinician and from the differences in donor sites and defect extension, some considerations can be made: 1) both methods are a reliable means for the correction of narrow edentulous ridges; 2) both techniques necessitate overcorrection of the defect because of interposition of connective tissue beneath the membrane in the first group and bone resorption in the second one; 3) the use of semipermeable barriers increases the costs of the surgical procedure, as compared to bone grafting without membranes; 4) guided bone regeneration presents a higher risk of infection because of wound dehiscence and membrane exposure. Therefore, in case ofwide edentulous areas, reconstruction of narrow ridges should be performed with bone blocks without membranes.
Url:
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100404.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:3BCF1A5081F26E98304E8D3AF75119F5150F535FLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Clinical outcome of autogenous bone blocks or guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges</title><author><name sortKey="Chiapasco, Matteo" sort="Chiapasco, Matteo" uniqKey="Chiapasco M" first="Matteo" last="Chiapasco">Matteo Chiapasco</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Abati, Silvio" sort="Abati, Silvio" uniqKey="Abati S" first="Silvio" last="Abati">Silvio Abati</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Romeo, Eugenio" sort="Romeo, Eugenio" uniqKey="Romeo E" first="Eugenio" last="Romeo">Eugenio Romeo</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Vogel, Giorgio" sort="Vogel, Giorgio" uniqKey="Vogel G" first="Giorgio" last="Vogel">Giorgio Vogel</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:3BCF1A5081F26E98304E8D3AF75119F5150F535F</idno><date when="1999" year="1999">1999</date><idno type="doi">10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100404.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/3BCF1A5081F26E98304E8D3AF75119F5150F535F/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001D25</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001D25</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Clinical outcome of autogenous bone blocks or guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges</title><author><name sortKey="Chiapasco, Matteo" sort="Chiapasco, Matteo" uniqKey="Chiapasco M" first="Matteo" last="Chiapasco">Matteo Chiapasco</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Abati, Silvio" sort="Abati, Silvio" uniqKey="Abati S" first="Silvio" last="Abati">Silvio Abati</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Romeo, Eugenio" sort="Romeo, Eugenio" uniqKey="Romeo E" first="Eugenio" last="Romeo">Eugenio Romeo</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Vogel, Giorgio" sort="Vogel, Giorgio" uniqKey="Vogel G" first="Giorgio" last="Vogel">Giorgio Vogel</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">10</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="278">278</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="288">288</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1999-08">1999-08</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">The aim of this study was to analyse the clinical outcome of two different surgical methods for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges before implant installation: guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes and autologous bone chips or grafting of autologous bone blocks without e‐PTFE membranes. Thirty partially edentulous patients, presenting insufficient bone width (less than 4 mm) in the edentulous sites for installation of screw‐type titanium implants, were selected and assigned to two different treatment modalities. Fifteen patients (group 1) were treated by means of guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes supported by stainless steel wews and autologous bone chips taken from intraoral sites. Fifteen patients (group 2) were treated by means of autologous bone blocks taken from intraoral or extraoral sites (anterior iliac crest and calvaria) and stabilized with titanium microscrews. Six to 8 months later, during re‐entry for implant insertion, the gain of ridge width obtained was measured. In group 1 the average amount of bone gain was 2.7 mm, whereas in group 2 the value was 4.0 mm. Five to 6 months after implant placement prosthetic rehabilitation was started. The mean follow‐up after prosthetic load has been 22.4 months. Success rates of implants according to Albrektsson criteria has been 93.3% in group 1, and 90.9% in group 2. Although a statistical comparison between the two treatment modalities may not be feasible, due to the bias resulting from the choice of treatment by the clinician and from the differences in donor sites and defect extension, some considerations can be made: 1) both methods are a reliable means for the correction of narrow edentulous ridges; 2) both techniques necessitate overcorrection of the defect because of interposition of connective tissue beneath the membrane in the first group and bone resorption in the second one; 3) the use of semipermeable barriers increases the costs of the surgical procedure, as compared to bone grafting without membranes; 4) guided bone regeneration presents a higher risk of infection because of wound dehiscence and membrane exposure. Therefore, in case ofwide edentulous areas, reconstruction of narrow ridges should be performed with bone blocks without membranes.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Matteo Chiapasco</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Silvio Abati</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Eugenio Romeo</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Giorgio Vogel</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>guided bone regeneration</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>bone grafts</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>atrophic jaws</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CLR100404</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-QBN1MFRW-D</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>The aim of this study was to analyse the clinical outcome of two different surgical methods for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges before implant installation: guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes and autologous bone chips or grafting of autologous bone blocks without e‐PTFE membranes. Thirty partially edentulous patients, presenting insufficient bone width (less than 4 mm) in the edentulous sites for installation of screw‐type titanium implants, were selected and assigned to two different treatment modalities. Fifteen patients (group 1) were treated by means of guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes supported by stainless steel wews and autologous bone chips taken from intraoral sites. Fifteen patients (group 2) were treated by means of autologous bone blocks taken from intraoral or extraoral sites (anterior iliac crest and calvaria) and stabilized with titanium microscrews. Six to 8 months later, during re‐entry for implant insertion, the gain of ridge width obtained was measured. In group 1 the average amount of bone gain was 2.7 mm, whereas in group 2 the value was 4.0 mm. Five to 6 months after implant placement prosthetic rehabilitation was started. The mean follow‐up after prosthetic load has been 22.4 months. Success rates of implants according to Albrektsson criteria has been 93.3% in group 1, and 90.9% in group 2. Although a statistical comparison between the two treatment modalities may not be feasible, due to the bias resulting from the choice of treatment by the clinician and from the differences in donor sites and defect extension, some considerations can be made: 1) both methods are a reliable means for the correction of narrow edentulous ridges; 2) both techniques necessitate overcorrection of the defect because of interposition of connective tissue beneath the membrane in the first group and bone resorption in the second one; 3) the use of semipermeable barriers increases the costs of the surgical procedure, as compared to bone grafting without membranes; 4) guided bone regeneration presents a higher risk of infection because of wound dehiscence and membrane exposure. Therefore, in case ofwide edentulous areas, reconstruction of narrow ridges should be performed with bone blocks without membranes.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>5.05</score><pdfWordCount>0</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>0</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>11</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>529 x 745 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>349</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>2283</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>3</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Clinical outcome of autogenous bone blocks or guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges</title><pmid><json:string>10551070</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0905-7161</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1600-0501</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>CLR</json:string></publisherId><volume>10</volume><issue>4</issue><pages><first>278</first><last>288</last></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>1999</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName></persName><placeName></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-QBN1MFRW-D</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - engineering, biomedical</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - Oral Surgery</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>1 - sciences appliquees, technologies et medecines</json:string><json:string>2 - sciences biologiques et medicales</json:string><json:string>3 - sciences medicales</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>1999</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1999</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100404.x</json:string></doi><id>3BCF1A5081F26E98304E8D3AF75119F5150F535F</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/3BCF1A5081F26E98304E8D3AF75119F5150F535F/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>ocr</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/ocr</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/3BCF1A5081F26E98304E8D3AF75119F5150F535F/fulltext/ocr</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/3BCF1A5081F26E98304E8D3AF75119F5150F535F/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/3BCF1A5081F26E98304E8D3AF75119F5150F535F/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Clinical outcome of autogenous bone blocks or guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1999-08"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Clinical outcome of autogenous bone blocks or guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges</title><title level="a" type="short">Autogenous bone blocks or guided bone regeneration</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Matteo</forename><surname>Chiapasco</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy<address><country key="IT"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Silvio</forename><surname>Abati</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy<address><country key="IT"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Eugenio</forename><surname>Romeo</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy<address><country key="IT"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Giorgio</forename><surname>Vogel</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy<address><country key="IT"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">3BCF1A5081F26E98304E8D3AF75119F5150F535F</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-QBN1MFRW-D</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100404.x</idno><idno type="unit">CLR100404</idno><idno type="supplier"></idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR100404.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="pISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/clr.1999.10.issue-4</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">10</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="278">278</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="288">288</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1999-08"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p>The aim of this study was to analyse the clinical outcome of two different surgical methods for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges before implant installation: guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes and autologous bone chips or grafting of autologous bone blocks without e‐PTFE membranes. Thirty partially edentulous patients, presenting insufficient bone width (less than 4 mm) in the edentulous sites for installation of screw‐type titanium implants, were selected and assigned to two different treatment modalities. Fifteen patients (group 1) were treated by means of guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes supported by stainless steel wews and autologous bone chips taken from intraoral sites. Fifteen patients (group 2) were treated by means of autologous bone blocks taken from intraoral or extraoral sites (anterior iliac crest and calvaria) and stabilized with titanium microscrews. Six to 8 months later, during re‐entry for implant insertion, the gain of ridge width obtained was measured. In group 1 the average amount of bone gain was 2.7 mm, whereas in group 2 the value was 4.0 mm. Five to 6 months after implant placement prosthetic rehabilitation was started. The mean follow‐up after prosthetic load has been 22.4 months. Success rates of implants according to Albrektsson criteria has been 93.3% in group 1, and 90.9% in group 2. Although a statistical comparison between the two treatment modalities may not be feasible, due to the bias resulting from the choice of treatment by the clinician and from the differences in donor sites and defect extension, some considerations can be made: 1) both methods are a reliable means for the correction of narrow edentulous ridges; 2) both techniques necessitate overcorrection of the defect because of interposition of connective tissue beneath the membrane in the first group and bone resorption in the second one; 3) the use of semipermeable barriers increases the costs of the surgical procedure, as compared to bone grafting without membranes; 4) guided bone regeneration presents a higher risk of infection because of wound dehiscence and membrane exposure. Therefore, in case ofwide edentulous areas, reconstruction of narrow ridges should be performed with bone blocks without membranes.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">guided bone regeneration</term><term xml:id="k2">bone grafts</term><term xml:id="k3">atrophic jaws</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Articles</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change>undefined</change><change>[object Object]</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/3BCF1A5081F26E98304E8D3AF75119F5150F535F/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley component found"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisherName><publisherLoc>Copenhagen</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</doi><issn type="print">0905-7161</issn><issn type="electronic">1600-0501</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CLR"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="08004"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.1999.10.issue-4</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="10">10</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="4">4</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="1999-08">August 1999</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0027800" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100404.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CLR100404"></id><id type="supplier" value=""></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2002-01-11"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2002-01-11"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:Header result:Header" date="2010-03-15"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:4.0.1" date="2014-03-12"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-16"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="278">278</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="288">288</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Dr Matteo Chiapasw, Cattedra di Odontostomatologia, Via Seldiletto 113–20142 Milano, Italy</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR100404.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted for publication 15 October 1998</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Clinical outcome of autogenous bone blocks or guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges</title><title type="shortAuthors">Chiapasco et al.</title><title type="short">Autogenous bone blocks or guided bone regeneration</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Matteo</givenNames><familyName>Chiapasco</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Silvio</givenNames><familyName>Abati</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Eugenio</givenNames><familyName>Romeo</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Giorgio</givenNames><familyName>Vogel</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="IT"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">guided bone regeneration</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">bone grafts</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">atrophic jaws</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p>The aim of this study was to analyse the clinical outcome of two different surgical methods for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges before implant installation: guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes and autologous bone chips or grafting of autologous bone blocks without e‐PTFE membranes. Thirty partially edentulous patients, presenting insufficient bone width (less than 4 mm) in the edentulous sites for installation of screw‐type titanium implants, were selected and assigned to two different treatment modalities. Fifteen patients (group 1) were treated by means of guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes supported by stainless steel wews and autologous bone chips taken from intraoral sites. Fifteen patients (group 2) were treated by means of autologous bone blocks taken from intraoral or extraoral sites (anterior iliac crest and calvaria) and stabilized with titanium microscrews. Six to 8 months later, during re‐entry for implant insertion, the gain of ridge width obtained was measured. In group 1 the average amount of bone gain was 2.7 mm, whereas in group 2 the value was 4.0 mm. Five to 6 months after implant placement prosthetic rehabilitation was started. The mean follow‐up after prosthetic load has been 22.4 months. Success rates of implants according to Albrektsson criteria has been 93.3% in group 1, and 90.9% in group 2. Although a statistical comparison between the two treatment modalities may not be feasible, due to the bias resulting from the choice of treatment by the clinician and from the differences in donor sites and defect extension, some considerations can be made: 1) both methods are a reliable means for the correction of narrow edentulous ridges; 2) both techniques necessitate overcorrection of the defect because of interposition of connective tissue beneath the membrane in the first group and bone resorption in the second one; 3) the use of semipermeable barriers increases the costs of the surgical procedure, as compared to bone grafting without membranes; 4) guided bone regeneration presents a higher risk of infection because of wound dehiscence and membrane exposure. Therefore, in case ofwide edentulous areas, reconstruction of narrow ridges should be performed with bone blocks without membranes.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Clinical outcome of autogenous bone blocks or guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Autogenous bone blocks or guided bone regeneration</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Clinical outcome of autogenous bone blocks or guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Matteo</namePart><namePart type="family">Chiapasco</namePart><affiliation>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Silvio</namePart><namePart type="family">Abati</namePart><affiliation>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Eugenio</namePart><namePart type="family">Romeo</namePart><affiliation>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Giorgio</namePart><namePart type="family">Vogel</namePart><affiliation>Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, School of Dentistry, San Paolo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Copenhagen</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1999-08</dateIssued><edition>Accepted for publication 15 October 1998</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1999</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="linksCrossRef">0</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">The aim of this study was to analyse the clinical outcome of two different surgical methods for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges before implant installation: guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes and autologous bone chips or grafting of autologous bone blocks without e‐PTFE membranes. Thirty partially edentulous patients, presenting insufficient bone width (less than 4 mm) in the edentulous sites for installation of screw‐type titanium implants, were selected and assigned to two different treatment modalities. Fifteen patients (group 1) were treated by means of guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes supported by stainless steel wews and autologous bone chips taken from intraoral sites. Fifteen patients (group 2) were treated by means of autologous bone blocks taken from intraoral or extraoral sites (anterior iliac crest and calvaria) and stabilized with titanium microscrews. Six to 8 months later, during re‐entry for implant insertion, the gain of ridge width obtained was measured. In group 1 the average amount of bone gain was 2.7 mm, whereas in group 2 the value was 4.0 mm. Five to 6 months after implant placement prosthetic rehabilitation was started. The mean follow‐up after prosthetic load has been 22.4 months. Success rates of implants according to Albrektsson criteria has been 93.3% in group 1, and 90.9% in group 2. Although a statistical comparison between the two treatment modalities may not be feasible, due to the bias resulting from the choice of treatment by the clinician and from the differences in donor sites and defect extension, some considerations can be made: 1) both methods are a reliable means for the correction of narrow edentulous ridges; 2) both techniques necessitate overcorrection of the defect because of interposition of connective tissue beneath the membrane in the first group and bone resorption in the second one; 3) the use of semipermeable barriers increases the costs of the surgical procedure, as compared to bone grafting without membranes; 4) guided bone regeneration presents a higher risk of infection because of wound dehiscence and membrane exposure. Therefore, in case ofwide edentulous areas, reconstruction of narrow ridges should be performed with bone blocks without membranes.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>guided bone regeneration</topic><topic>bone grafts</topic><topic>atrophic jaws</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0905-7161</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CLR</identifier><part><date>1999</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>10</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>278</start><end>288</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">3BCF1A5081F26E98304E8D3AF75119F5150F535F</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-QBN1MFRW-D</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100404.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CLR100404</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Munksgaard International Publishers</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/3BCF1A5081F26E98304E8D3AF75119F5150F535F/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001D25 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001D25 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:3BCF1A5081F26E98304E8D3AF75119F5150F535F
|texte= Clinical outcome of autogenous bone blocks or guided bone regeneration with e‐PTFE membranes for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |