Home > DARE Reviews > Localized ridge...

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet].

Localized ridge augmentation/preservation: a systematic review

Review published: 2003.

Bibliographic details: Fiorellini J P, Nevins M L.  Localized ridge augmentation/preservation: a systematic review. Annals of Periodontology 2003; 8(1): 321-327. [PubMed: 14971259]

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Osseointegrated implants have been documented as efficacious, however, their placement may be contraindicated in some patients due to insufficient bone volume. Techniques such as guided bone regeneration (GBR), immediate implantation, and distraction osteogenesis (DO) have been utilized as ridge enhancement therapies.

RATIONALE: This systematic review evaluates dental implant survival rates in patients treated with ridge augmentation or preservation techniques.

FOCUSED QUESTION: In patients requiring dental implant placement, what is the effect of localized ridge preservation versus implant placement without augmentation on implant survival and adverse effects?

SEARCH PROTOCOL: MEDLINE and Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialized Trial Register were searched. Hand searches were performed on Clinical Oral Implants Research, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Periodontology, and Journal of Periodontal Research. All searches were performed for articles published through April 2002.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Publications reporting survival rate of dental implants following ridge therapy were included in the analysis. Reports describing techniques were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Due to the absence of controlled studies, a meta-analysis was not performed. Descriptive statistics are used to report the data.

MAIN RESULTS: 1. A total of 18 studies were included: 13 reporting on guided bone regeneration (GBR, 1,741 patients) and 5 on distraction osteogenesis (DO, 92 patients). 2. There is a high level of predictable implant survival in sites treated by GBR or DO. 3. These survival rates are similar to those of implants placed in native bone. REVIEWERS' INTERPRETATIONS: Survival rates were similar for both GBR and DO implants. These survival rates were similar to implants placed in native bone.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2014 University of York.

PMID: 14971259

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...