Vertical augmentation of the posterior atrophic mandible by interpositional grafts in a split‐mouth design: a human tomography evaluation pilot study

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research Vol. 28; no. 10; pp. e193 - e200
• Main Authors: Domingues, Eduardo Pinheiro, Ribeiro, Rafael Fernandes, Horta, Martinho Campolina Rebello, Manzi, Flávio Ricardo, Côsso, Maurício Greco, Zenóbio, Elton Gonçalves
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Denmark Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.10.2017
• Subjects: Alveolar Ridge Augmentation - methods; Atrophy; Augmentation; Biocompatibility; Biomaterials; Biomedical materials; Bone grafts; Bone matrix; bone regeneration; Bone Substitutes; Calcium phosphates; Computation; Computed tomography; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; CT Imaging; Data processing; Dental implants; Dentistry; Dimensional stability; Female; Grafting; Grafts; guided tissue regeneration; Humans; Hydroxyapatite; Hydroxyapatites; Male; Mandible; Mandible - diagnostic imaging; Mandible - pathology; Mandible - surgery; Minerals; Osteotomy; Phosphates; Pilot Projects; Rehabilitation; Statistical analysis; Statistical methods; Surgery; Surgical implants; Tricalcium phosphate; CT Imaging; bone regeneration; biomaterials; guided tissue regeneration
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.12985

Objective Using computed tomography, to compare vertical and volumetric bone augmentation after interposition grafting with bovine bone mineral matrix (GEISTLICH BIO‐OSS®) or hydroxyapatite/tricalcium phosphate (STRAUMANN® BONECERAMIC) for atrophic posterior mandible reconstruction through segmental osteotomy. Material and methods Seven patients received interposition grafts in the posterior mandible for implant rehabilitation. The computed tomography cone beam images were analysed with OsiriX Imaging Software 6.5 (Pixmeo Geneva, Switzerland) in the pre‐surgical period (T0), at 15 days post‐surgery (T1) and at 180 days post‐surgery (T2). The tomographic analysis was performed by a single trained and calibrated radiologist. Descriptive statistics and nonparametric methods were used to analyse the data. Results There was a significant difference in vertical and volume augmentation with both biomaterials using the technique (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in volume change of the graft, bone volume augmentation, or augmentation of the maximum linear vertical distance between the two analysed biomaterials. Conclusions The GEISTLICH BIO‐OSS® and STRAUMANN® BONECERAMIC interposition grafts exhibited similar and sufficient dimensional stability and volume gain for short implants in the atrophic posterior mandible.