Interventions for Dental Implant Placement in Atrophic Edentulous Mandibles: Vertical Bone Augmentation and Alternative Treatments. A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials |
| |
Authors: | Octavi Camps‐Font Genís Burgueño‐Barris Rui Figueiredo Ronald E Jung Cosme Gay‐Escoda Eduard Valmaseda‐Castellón |
| |
Institution: | 1. Department of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.;2. Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.;3. Division of Implantology, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.;4. Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Zürich, Switzerland.;5. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona.;6. Department of Oral Surgery and Implantology, European Foundation for Health Research and Education, Belize City, Belize.;7. Department of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Private Catalan Foundation for Oral Health, Barcelona, Spain.;8. Department of Oral Surgery, Implantology, and Maxillofacial Surgery, Teknon Medical Center, Barcelona, Spain. |
| |
Abstract: | Background: The purpose of the current study is to assess which vertical bone augmentation techniques are most effective for restoring atrophic posterior areas of the mandible with dental implants and compare these procedures with alternative treatments. Methods: Electronic literature searches in PubMed (MEDLINE), Ovid, and the Cochrane Library were conducted to identify all relevant articles published up to July 1, 2015. Eligibility was based on inclusion criteria, and quality assessments were conducted. The primary outcome variables were implant and prosthetic failure. After data extraction, meta‐analyses were performed. Results: Out of 527 potentially eligible papers, 14 randomized clinical trials were included. Out of these 14 studies, four trials assessed short implants (5 to 8 mm) as an alternative to vertical bone augmentation in sites with a residual ridge height of 5 to 8 mm. No statistically significant differences were found in implant (odds ratio OR]: 1.02; 95% confidence interval CI]: 0.31 to 3.31; P = 0.98; I2: 0%) or prosthetic failure (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.21 to 1.96; P = 0.43; I2: 0%) after 12 months of loading. However, complications at treated sites increased with the augmentation procedures (OR: 8.33; 95% CI: 3.85 to 20.0; P <0.001; I2: 0%). There was no evidence of any vertical augmentation procedure being of greater benefit than any other for the primary outcomes (implant and prosthetic failure). Conclusions: Short implants in the posterior area of the mandible seem to be preferable to vertical augmentation procedures, which present similar implant and prosthetic failure rates but greater morbidity. All the vertical augmentation technique comparisons showed similar intergroup results. |
| |
Keywords: | Alveolar ridge augmentation bone transplantation dental implants mandible mandibular nerve meta‐analysis |
|
|