Research Centre for the Study of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases, University of Ferrara, Ferrara.
Operative Unit of Dentistry, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale, Ferrara.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2022 Apr;24(2):251-264. doi: 10.1111/cid.13078. Epub 2022 Mar 22.
The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate the effect of different lateral bone augmentation (LBA) procedures on the complete correction of a peri-implant bone dehiscence (BD) or fenestration (BF) from implant placement to implant surgical uncovering.
Electronic (Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane databases) and hand literature searches were performed for studies including at least one treatment arm where any LBA had been applied to correct a BD/BF at implant placement (T0). Studies where BD/BF was left untreated were also retrieved as negative control. Data from 24 selected articles were used to perform a network meta-analysis. Based on the proportion of nonresolved BD/BF at implant surgical uncovering (T1), a hierarchy of LBA procedures, and was determined. Spontaneous healing (i.e., exposed implant surface covered by a full-thickness flap; SELF) was also included in the hierarchy. Resorbable membrane + bone graft (RM + BG) was used as reference group. An analysis on the effect of nonhuman (NHBS) vs human (HBS) derived bone substitutes was also performed. NHBS was used as the reference group.
No statistically significant differences were found among treatments for the proportion of nonresolved BD/BF. SELF performed substantially worse compared to RM + BG (OR: 5.78 × 10, CI: 4.83 × 10 - 1.3 × 10 ). Treatment based on a combination of a graft material and membrane/periosteum appeared to perform slightly better than treatments using graft material or membrane alone. NHBS appeared to perform better than HBS. SELF had the worst effect among all treatments for both BD/BF height reduction (BDH) and BD/BF width reduction (BDW). Nonresorbable membrane (NRM) and patient's own periosteum (PERI) + BG showed greater increases in buccal bone thickness than RM + BG.
Reconstructive treatment (including use of graft alone, membrane alone, or combinations of grafts and either membrane or patient's own periosteum) of a BD/BF at implant placement favorably and significantly impacts on the probability to obtain complete correction of the BD/BF at implant uncovering when compared to full-thickness flap repositioning on the BD/BF. When using a bone substitute, a nonhuman derived one may be suggested.
本系统评价的目的是评估不同的侧向骨增量(LBA)程序对种植体植入时的种植体周围骨缺损(BD)或骨开窗(BF)完全矫正的影响,直至种植体手术暴露。
电子检索(Medline、Scopus 和 Cochrane 数据库)和手工检索文献,纳入至少有一个治疗组应用任何 LBA 矫正植入物放置时的 BD/BF 的研究。还检索了未治疗的 BD/BF 的研究作为阴性对照。从 24 篇选定的文章中提取数据进行网络荟萃分析。根据种植体手术暴露时未解决的 BD/BF 的比例(T1),确定了 LBA 手术的层次,并确定了一个层次结构。自发愈合(即,完全厚度瓣覆盖暴露的种植体表面;SELF)也包括在层次结构中。还对非人类来源(NHBS)与人类来源(HBS)骨替代物的效果进行了分析。NHBS 被用作参考组。
对于未解决的 BD/BF 比例,治疗组之间没有发现统计学上的显著差异。SELF 的效果明显比 RM+BG 差(OR:5.78×10,CI:4.83×10-1.3×10)。基于移植物材料和膜/骨膜的组合的治疗方法似乎比单独使用移植物材料或膜的治疗方法略好。NHBS 似乎比 HBS 表现更好。SELF 在所有治疗方法中对 BD/BF 高度减少(BDH)和 BD/BF 宽度减少(BDW)的效果最差。非吸收性膜(NRM)和患者自身骨膜(PERI)+BG 比 RM+BG 增加颊侧骨厚度的效果更大。
与 BD/BF 上全厚瓣重新定位相比,在种植体植入时对 BD/BF 进行重建性治疗(包括单独使用移植物、单独使用膜或使用移植物和膜或患者自身骨膜的组合),显著有利于并显著影响在种植体暴露时获得 BD/BF 完全矫正的可能性。当使用骨替代物时,可能建议使用非人类来源的骨替代物。