BACKGROUND: This article intends to showcase a case of guided bone regeneration (GBR) utilizing a partially demineralized dentin plate processed from an extracted second molar for horizontal augmentation of the posterior ridge for implant placement.
RESULTS: A 60-year-old patient presented with horizontal ridge deficiency at site #30 and an endodontically treated tooth #31 with recurrent decay. A treatment plan was proposed to extract tooth #31 and utilize a dentin graft from the tooth for ridge augmentation at site #30. Following the atraumatic extraction of tooth #31, it was sectioned into a 1 mm thick dentin plate, sterilized, and processed to obtain a demineralized dentin graft. Following a mid-crestal incision and full-thickness flap elevation, the dentin plate was adapted on the buccal defect of site #30 with 10 mm fixation screws, and the gap between the plate and the buccal bone was filled with 0.5 cc of 50/50 cortico-cancellous bone allograft hydrated with saline, covered with collagen membrane followed by primary closure. At 6 months, a postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was obtained to evaluate the ridge width revealing sufficient ridge width for optimal implant placement. The radio-opaque dentin plate was visible on the CBCT depicting integration with the alveolar ridge. Following surgical implant preparation protocol, a 4 mm diameter and 8.5 mm length implant was placed in a restoratively driven position.
CONCLUSIONS: This case reports favorable outcomes for GBR using a partially demineralized dentin plate as an alternative to an autogenous bone block graft for horizontal ridge augmentation for future implant placement.
CONCLUSIONS: This case introduces a novel method utilizing partially demineralized dentin plates derived from extracted teeth for guided bone regeneration, showcasing its potential efficacy in addressing ridge deficiencies. Success, in this case, relies on meticulous sectioning of the tooth and processing of the dentin graft, precise adaptation and fixation of the graft to the residual ridge, and achieving primary closure for undisturbed healing. Limitations to success include the availability of teeth for extraction coinciding with the need for ridge augmentation and unstable graft fixation.

Bone augmentation is often required before the installation of dental implants. Here, we report a case for a patient who previously received bone augmentation at the upper right jaw using a xenogenic graft, followed by successful implant installation. Seven years later, the patient presented with mucosal fenestration with bone exposure at the area and gave a history of a recent diagnosis of cutaneous lichen planus. Several attempts were made to manage the situation, and finally, we resorted to connective tissue graft placement at the site. A piece of bone was sent for histologic evaluation, where the results indicated the presence of un-resorbed graft material surrounded by inflammatory cells, with no evidence of bone formation in the area. The case presents histologic evidence for the lack of new bone formation using xenograft over the evaluation period. The case also shows lichen planus, a possible cause for oral complication for patients undergoing augmentation and implant installation.

Bone augmentation is often required before the installation of dental implants. Here, we report a case for a patient who previously received bone augmentation at the upper right jaw using a xenogenic graft, followed by successful implant installation. Seven years later, the patient presented with mucosal fenestration with bone exposure at the area and gave a history of a recent diagnosis of cutaneous lichen planus. Several attempts were made to manage the situation, and finally, we resorted to connective tissue graft placement at the site. A piece of bone was sent for histologic evaluation, where the results indicated the presence of un-resorbed graft material surrounded by inflammatory cells, with no evidence of bone formation in the area. The case presents histologic evidence for the lack of new bone formation using xenograft over the evaluation period. The case also shows lichen planus, a possible cause for oral complication for patients undergoing augmentation and implant installation.

OBJECTIVE: The present study was conducted to evaluate the effect of soft tissue augmentation using a self-inflating soft tissue expander when performed before horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation on the outcomes of the bone augmentation procedure. The primary outcome is the bucco-palatal radiographical changes in alveolar ridge width, while the secondary outcome is the quality of the augmented bone assessed histomorphometrically.
METHODS: Sixteen patients underwent horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation using autogenous bone. For the test group, soft tissue expanders were used in a separate surgery before bone grafting surgery. For the control group, patients received treatment including single surgery of bone grafting associated with periosteal releasing incision. Implants were placed in both groups 6 months after bone augmentation. Bucco-palatal changes in alveolar ridge width were evaluated via cone-beam computed tomography. Augmented bone quality was assessed histomorphometrically.
RESULTS: After 6 months, regarding radiographic bone width, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups, as mean bone width in group I and group II were 8.57 mm and 8.75 mm, respectively. Regarding histomorphometric analysis, Group I showed significantly higher mean bone surface area fraction, higher median mature collagen area fraction, and higher median blood vessel count than Group II (p-value = .012), (p-value = .004), and (p-value = .014), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the present study, soft tissue expander has no influence on bone width gain after horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation with an autogenous bone block but may have a positive effect on the quality of augmented bone.

Augmentation of alveolar ridge defects is a technique-sensitive procedure in dental implantology. Depending on the size of the defect, it may be necessary to use autogenous bone blocks. However, patients may be against these blocks as these procedures are surgically invasive.
Case report: This report describes the restoration of a partially edentulous mandible, which suffered a major bone defect from the right canine to the third molar site after multiple implant losses. The use of a CAD/CAM allogeneic cancellous bone block from a living donor bone was planned for the reconstruction of the alveolar ridge at the defected site. A CBCT scan was taken and the virtual planning of the bone augmentation and placement of four implants was performed. The milled bone block was fixed for augmentation and the implants were placed using a CBCT-generated surgical guide. After osseointegration, a CAD/CAM-fabricated screw-retained metal-ceramic implant fixed partial denture with angulated screw channels was delivered.
Results: The use of CAD/CAM-milled, allogeneic bone block resulted in a time-efficient and simplified reconstruction of the defect because no donor site was used, and the fit of the block on the native bone was uneventful and fast. At the 1-year follow-up, an average peri-implant vertical soft tissue decrease of 1 mm on buccal and 0.3 mm on lingual sites was observed and the peri-implant tissues were healthy.
Conclusions: The long-term success of this CAD/CAM cancellous bone block needs to be evaluated in well-designed clinical studies.

.

This systematic review is aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of synthetic block materials for bone augmentation in preclinical in vivo studies. An electronic search was performed on Pubmed, Scopus, EMBASE. Articles selected underwent risk-of-bias assessment. The outcomes were: new bone formation and residual graft with histomorphometry, radiographic bone density, soft tissue parameters, complications. Meta-analysis was performed to compare new bone formation in test (synthetic blocks) vs. control group (autogenous blocks or spontaneous healing). The search yielded 214 articles. After screening, 39 studies were included, all performed on animal models: rabbits (n = 18 studies), dogs (n = 4), rats (n = 7), minipigs (n = 4), goats (n = 4), and sheep (n = 2). The meta-analysis on rabbit studies showed significantly higher new bone formation for synthetic blocks with respect to autogenous blocks both at four-week (mean difference (MD): 5.91%, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.04, 10.79%, p = 0.02) and at eight-week healing (MD: 4.44%, 95% CI: 0.71, 8.17%, p = 0.02). Other animal models evidenced a trend for better outcomes with synthetic blocks, though only based on qualitative analysis. Synthetic blocks may represent a viable resource in bone regenerative surgery for achieving new bone formation. Differences in the animal models, the design of included studies, and the bone defects treated should be considered when generalizing the results. Clinical studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of synthetic blocks in bone augmentation procedures.

Ridge preservation and bone augmentation techniques in implant dentistry are designed to preserve and augment existing alveolar ridge to prepare it for implant treatment. Bone stock is an essential component for a long-term success of dental implants. This article provides a prosthetically driven step-by-step surgical restorative decision tree algorithm to diagnose and treat an edentulous condition in implant dentistry.

Replacement of failing and ailing natural teeth with dental implants has become a mainstream treatment option since the discovery of osseointegration by P.-I. Brånemark in the 1960s. The techniques and the variety of methods for alveolar bone reconstruction have evolved to address a restoratively driven approach in implant dentistry. Modern 3D cone-bean computed tomography has helped with the diagnosis and treatment of bone deficiencies to idealize implant positioning. This article focuses on bone augmentation techniques, classified into horizontal and vertical ridge augmentation, and discusses block grafting, guided bone regeneration particulate grafting, distraction osteogenesis, and ridge-split expansion procedures.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to determine the most effective alveolar augmentation technique for vertical bone gain.
METHODS: A systematic search to select clinical trials and retrospective studies done on patients with reduced vertical bone height was conducted. The intervention of interest was autogenous block graft done compared to procedures such as distraction osteogenesis (DO), particulate grafting, block plus particulate grafting with titanium mesh, and tent pole technique in systematically healthy adult patients age 18 and older. The following electronic databases were explored: PubMed, CINAHL, and Dental and Oral Science. A supplementary manual search of published full-text articles from January 2005 to December 2017 was done using Google Scholar. Grey literature was also sought using greylit.org. The review protocol was registered at the Prospero registry (CRD # 42017072432). The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using EPOC criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager for studies with quantitative data on mean values of vertical bone gain and bone resorption achieved with various bone augmentation techniques. Random effect model was used. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated using the I2 statistic.
RESULTS: A total of 2322 articles were found. After excluding the irrelevant papers, only 8 papers were finally selected for the detailed evaluation. Of these 8, 5 were clinical trials, and 3 were retrospective studies. Four studies were on DO, 2 on particulate grafting, 1 on autogenous block grafting plus particulate grafting, and 1 on tent pole grafting. The control group in all studies were autogenous block graft. Meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between DO and autogenous block grafting for vertical bone gain (mean difference 0.82 [-1.28, 2.91]). Similarly, no significant difference was observed in the 2 techniques for bone resorption (mean difference 0.38 [-0.23, 0.99]).
CONCLUSIONS: DO was not superior to autogenous block grafting for vertical bone augmentation. Both techniques were associated with a number of complications. There was no difference in the bone resorption observed in the 2 techniques. No conclusive results can be drawn on other techniques on account of limited data.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the radiographic marginal bone levels of implants placed in sites previously augmented with autogenous bone grafts and implants placed in native bone. Secondary outcomes included: implant survival, periodontal/peri-implant parameters as well as short- and long-term patient-reported outcome measures.
METHODS: The study was designed as a case-control study including 38 patients equally distributed into two groups (previously augmented with autogenous bone blocks [AB] and implants placed in native bone [NB]). In total, 67 implants were placed. Clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and complication rates were assessed based on a chart review and at a follow-up examination (≧5 years after implant placement). Nonparametric mixed models were applied for the comparison of the two groups because of the clustered data. The data were analyzed descriptively, and p-values were calculated using nonparametric mixed models to account for the clustered data.
RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 10.2 years (range 6-13 years; AB) and 8.3 years (range 5-16 years; NB). One implant was lost in group NB (97.5% survival rate) and none in group AB (100%). Following primary augmentation, six major complications (wound dehiscences, acute pulpitis, intra- and extraoral sensitivity disturbances) were observed at the donor sites. At time of implant placement, only minimal complications occurred and only in group NB. Median marginal bone levels at the follow-up were significantly higher in group NB (1.15; Q1: 0.50 mm/Q3: 1.83 mm) than in group AB (1.58; Q1: 1.01 mm/Q3: 2.40 mm; p = 0.0411). Probing depth, bleeding on probing and recession values were similar in both groups. PROMs revealed high visual analog scale values (i.e., high satisfaction) for both procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: Dental implants placed in sites augmented with autogenous bone or in native bone revealed healthy peri-implant tissues after 5-16 years. Marginal bone levels were significantly higher for implant placed in native bone. Complications following primary augmentation encompassed every third patient but were mostly transient.