Implant success in distracted bone versus autogenous bone-grafted sites.
Identifieur interne : 001E76 ( PubMed/Corpus ); précédent : 001E75; suivant : 001E77Implant success in distracted bone versus autogenous bone-grafted sites.
Auteurs : Jeffrey A. Elo ; Alan S. Herford ; Philip J. BoyneSource :
- The Journal of oral implantology [ 0160-6972 ] ; 2009.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Alveolar Ridge Augmentation, Bone Transplantation, Dental Arch (pathology), Dental Arch (surgery), Dental Implantation, Endosseous (methods), Dental Implants, Dental Restoration Failure, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Jaw, Edentulous (rehabilitation), Jaw, Edentulous (surgery), Mandible (pathology), Mandible (surgery), Maxilla (pathology), Maxilla (surgery), Osteogenesis, Distraction, Reconstructive Surgical Procedures, Retrospective Studies, Tissue and Organ Harvesting (methods), Transplantation, Autologous, Treatment Outcome.
- MESH :
- chemical : Dental Implants.
- methods : Dental Implantation, Endosseous, Tissue and Organ Harvesting.
- pathology : Dental Arch, Mandible, Maxilla.
- rehabilitation : Jaw, Edentulous.
- surgery : Dental Arch, Jaw, Edentulous, Mandible, Maxilla.
- Alveolar Ridge Augmentation, Bone Transplantation, Dental Restoration Failure, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Osteogenesis, Distraction, Reconstructive Surgical Procedures, Retrospective Studies, Transplantation, Autologous, Treatment Outcome.
Abstract
Endosseous implants are the treatment of choice for restoring function and reconstructing most edentulous areas of the maxilla and mandible. In general, alveolar bone defects can be reconstructed by either distraction osteogenesis or autogenous bone grafting. After alveolar reconstruction, endosseous implants are used to support and retain the prosthesis for restoration of form and function. Eighty-two consecutive patients requiring alveolar augmentation prior to implant placement were evaluated. All patients were given treatment options for reconstructing their alveolar defects, which included autogenous bone grafting vs distraction osteogenesis. Sixty-five patients received autogenous grafts (anterior iliac crest: 44; retromolar: 17; tibia: 2; chin: 2), and 17 patients underwent distraction osteogenesis prior to implant placement. A total of 184 implants were placed in the autogenous bone-grafted sites and 56 implants in the distracted bone sites. Implants placed in sites restored with autogenous bone grafts had an implant success rate of 97% (178/184), whereas implants placed in distracted bone sites had a success rate of 98% (55/56). In the autogenous grafted group, 3 implants failed in the posterior mandible, one in the anterior maxilla, one in the anterior mandible, and one in the posterior maxilla. In the distraction group, one implant failed in the posterior mandible. Both techniques are associated with good success rates. There was no statistical difference between implant success in autogenous bone vs distracted bone sites in this group of patients.
DOI: 10.1563/1548-1336-35.4.181
PubMed: 19813422
Links to Exploration step
pubmed:19813422Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Implant success in distracted bone versus autogenous bone-grafted sites.</title><author><name sortKey="Elo, Jeffrey A" sort="Elo, Jeffrey A" uniqKey="Elo J" first="Jeffrey A" last="Elo">Jeffrey A. Elo</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Loma Linda University Medical Center, CA 92350, USA.</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Herford, Alan S" sort="Herford, Alan S" uniqKey="Herford A" first="Alan S" last="Herford">Alan S. Herford</name></author><author><name sortKey="Boyne, Philip J" sort="Boyne, Philip J" uniqKey="Boyne P" first="Philip J" last="Boyne">Philip J. Boyne</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno><date when="2009">2009</date><idno type="RBID">pubmed:19813422</idno><idno type="pmid">19813422</idno><idno type="doi">10.1563/1548-1336-35.4.181</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">001E76</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">001E76</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">Implant success in distracted bone versus autogenous bone-grafted sites.</title><author><name sortKey="Elo, Jeffrey A" sort="Elo, Jeffrey A" uniqKey="Elo J" first="Jeffrey A" last="Elo">Jeffrey A. Elo</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Loma Linda University Medical Center, CA 92350, USA.</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Herford, Alan S" sort="Herford, Alan S" uniqKey="Herford A" first="Alan S" last="Herford">Alan S. Herford</name></author><author><name sortKey="Boyne, Philip J" sort="Boyne, Philip J" uniqKey="Boyne P" first="Philip J" last="Boyne">Philip J. Boyne</name></author></analytic><series><title level="j">The Journal of oral implantology</title><idno type="ISSN">0160-6972</idno><imprint><date when="2009" type="published">2009</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Alveolar Ridge Augmentation</term><term>Bone Transplantation</term><term>Dental Arch (pathology)</term><term>Dental Arch (surgery)</term><term>Dental Implantation, Endosseous (methods)</term><term>Dental Implants</term><term>Dental Restoration Failure</term><term>Follow-Up Studies</term><term>Humans</term><term>Jaw, Edentulous (rehabilitation)</term><term>Jaw, Edentulous (surgery)</term><term>Mandible (pathology)</term><term>Mandible (surgery)</term><term>Maxilla (pathology)</term><term>Maxilla (surgery)</term><term>Osteogenesis, Distraction</term><term>Reconstructive Surgical Procedures</term><term>Retrospective Studies</term><term>Tissue and Organ Harvesting (methods)</term><term>Transplantation, Autologous</term><term>Treatment Outcome</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" type="chemical" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Implants</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="methods" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Implantation, Endosseous</term><term>Tissue and Organ Harvesting</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="pathology" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Arch</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Maxilla</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="rehabilitation" xml:lang="en"><term>Jaw, Edentulous</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="surgery" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Arch</term><term>Jaw, Edentulous</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Maxilla</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en"><term>Alveolar Ridge Augmentation</term><term>Bone Transplantation</term><term>Dental Restoration Failure</term><term>Follow-Up Studies</term><term>Humans</term><term>Osteogenesis, Distraction</term><term>Reconstructive Surgical Procedures</term><term>Retrospective Studies</term><term>Transplantation, Autologous</term><term>Treatment Outcome</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Endosseous implants are the treatment of choice for restoring function and reconstructing most edentulous areas of the maxilla and mandible. In general, alveolar bone defects can be reconstructed by either distraction osteogenesis or autogenous bone grafting. After alveolar reconstruction, endosseous implants are used to support and retain the prosthesis for restoration of form and function. Eighty-two consecutive patients requiring alveolar augmentation prior to implant placement were evaluated. All patients were given treatment options for reconstructing their alveolar defects, which included autogenous bone grafting vs distraction osteogenesis. Sixty-five patients received autogenous grafts (anterior iliac crest: 44; retromolar: 17; tibia: 2; chin: 2), and 17 patients underwent distraction osteogenesis prior to implant placement. A total of 184 implants were placed in the autogenous bone-grafted sites and 56 implants in the distracted bone sites. Implants placed in sites restored with autogenous bone grafts had an implant success rate of 97% (178/184), whereas implants placed in distracted bone sites had a success rate of 98% (55/56). In the autogenous grafted group, 3 implants failed in the posterior mandible, one in the anterior maxilla, one in the anterior mandible, and one in the posterior maxilla. In the distraction group, one implant failed in the posterior mandible. Both techniques are associated with good success rates. There was no statistical difference between implant success in autogenous bone vs distracted bone sites in this group of patients.</div></front></TEI><pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">19813422</PMID><DateCompleted><Year>2009</Year><Month>12</Month><Day>23</Day></DateCompleted><DateRevised><Year>2009</Year><Month>10</Month><Day>09</Day></DateRevised><Article PubModel="Print"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Print">0160-6972</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Print"><Volume>35</Volume><Issue>4</Issue><PubDate><Year>2009</Year></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>The Journal of oral implantology</Title><ISOAbbreviation>J Oral Implantol</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>Implant success in distracted bone versus autogenous bone-grafted sites.</ArticleTitle><Pagination><MedlinePgn>181-4</MedlinePgn></Pagination><ELocationID EIdType="doi" ValidYN="Y">10.1563/1548-1336-35.4.181</ELocationID><Abstract><AbstractText>Endosseous implants are the treatment of choice for restoring function and reconstructing most edentulous areas of the maxilla and mandible. In general, alveolar bone defects can be reconstructed by either distraction osteogenesis or autogenous bone grafting. After alveolar reconstruction, endosseous implants are used to support and retain the prosthesis for restoration of form and function. Eighty-two consecutive patients requiring alveolar augmentation prior to implant placement were evaluated. All patients were given treatment options for reconstructing their alveolar defects, which included autogenous bone grafting vs distraction osteogenesis. Sixty-five patients received autogenous grafts (anterior iliac crest: 44; retromolar: 17; tibia: 2; chin: 2), and 17 patients underwent distraction osteogenesis prior to implant placement. A total of 184 implants were placed in the autogenous bone-grafted sites and 56 implants in the distracted bone sites. Implants placed in sites restored with autogenous bone grafts had an implant success rate of 97% (178/184), whereas implants placed in distracted bone sites had a success rate of 98% (55/56). In the autogenous grafted group, 3 implants failed in the posterior mandible, one in the anterior maxilla, one in the anterior mandible, and one in the posterior maxilla. In the distraction group, one implant failed in the posterior mandible. Both techniques are associated with good success rates. There was no statistical difference between implant success in autogenous bone vs distracted bone sites in this group of patients.</AbstractText></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Elo</LastName><ForeName>Jeffrey A</ForeName><Initials>JA</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Loma Linda University Medical Center, CA 92350, USA.</Affiliation></AffiliationInfo></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Herford</LastName><ForeName>Alan S</ForeName><Initials>AS</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Boyne</LastName><ForeName>Philip J</ForeName><Initials>PJ</Initials></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>United States</Country><MedlineTA>J Oral Implantol</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>7801086</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>0160-6972</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><ChemicalList><Chemical><RegistryNumber>0</RegistryNumber><NameOfSubstance UI="D015921">Dental Implants</NameOfSubstance></Chemical></ChemicalList><CitationSubset>D</CitationSubset><MeshHeadingList><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000540" MajorTopicYN="N">Alveolar Ridge Augmentation</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D016025" MajorTopicYN="Y">Bone Transplantation</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003724" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Arch</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000473" MajorTopicYN="N">pathology</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000601" MajorTopicYN="N">surgery</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003758" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Implantation, Endosseous</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="Y">methods</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D015921" MajorTopicYN="Y">Dental Implants</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D019232" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Restoration Failure</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D005500" MajorTopicYN="N">Follow-Up Studies</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D006801" MajorTopicYN="N">Humans</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D007575" MajorTopicYN="N">Jaw, Edentulous</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000534" MajorTopicYN="N">rehabilitation</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000601" MajorTopicYN="N">surgery</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008334" MajorTopicYN="N">Mandible</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000473" MajorTopicYN="N">pathology</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000601" MajorTopicYN="Y">surgery</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008437" MajorTopicYN="N">Maxilla</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000473" MajorTopicYN="N">pathology</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000601" MajorTopicYN="Y">surgery</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D019857" MajorTopicYN="Y">Osteogenesis, Distraction</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D019651" MajorTopicYN="N">Reconstructive Surgical Procedures</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D012189" MajorTopicYN="N">Retrospective Studies</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D020858" MajorTopicYN="N">Tissue and Organ Harvesting</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="N">methods</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D014182" MajorTopicYN="N">Transplantation, Autologous</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D016896" MajorTopicYN="N">Treatment Outcome</DescriptorName></MeshHeading></MeshHeadingList></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2009</Year><Month>10</Month><Day>10</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2009</Year><Month>10</Month><Day>10</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2009</Year><Month>12</Month><Day>24</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">19813422</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1563/1548-1336-35.4.181</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></PubmedData></pubmed></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/PubMed/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001E76 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001E76 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= PubMed
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= pubmed:19813422
|texte= Implant success in distracted bone versus autogenous bone-grafted sites.
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:19813422" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a EdenteV2
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |