Scholarlink

Objective <p>To evaluate the outcomes of bone augmentation techniques prior to implant placement in atrophic ridges using only moderate-to-high quality evidence, and to provide a provisional decision-making aid.</p> Methods <p>A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort studies, and retrospective cohorts with ≥ 10 patients reporting implant survival and complications were included. Case reports, small case series, and studies without essential data were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0, ROBINS-I, and GRADE.</p> Results <p>Of 471 identified records, 12 studies met inclusion criteria: 5 RCTs, 4 prospective, and 3 retrospective cohorts. Implant survival rates ranged from 88% to 100% depending on graft type and defect morphology. Autogenous grafts showed the highest predictability for extensive defects but had the highest donor site morbidity. GBR with xenograft–autogenous mixtures provided stable horizontal augmentation with fewer complications. Growth factor–enhanced xenografts and Ti-reinforced d-PTFE membranes offered promising results in selected cases.</p> Conclusions <p>Graft selection can be guided by defect size, patient comorbidity, and morbidity tolerance. The clinical decision-making table serves as a provisional, evidence-informed reference to assist clinicians in thinking through graft choices.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Bone Augmentation in Implant Dentistry: A Systematic Exploration of Techniques and Outcomes

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月19日

查看全文
  • Subham Kumar Sinha,
  • Asutosh Das

摘要

Objective

To evaluate the outcomes of bone augmentation techniques prior to implant placement in atrophic ridges using only moderate-to-high quality evidence, and to provide a provisional decision-making aid.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort studies, and retrospective cohorts with ≥ 10 patients reporting implant survival and complications were included. Case reports, small case series, and studies without essential data were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0, ROBINS-I, and GRADE.

Results

Of 471 identified records, 12 studies met inclusion criteria: 5 RCTs, 4 prospective, and 3 retrospective cohorts. Implant survival rates ranged from 88% to 100% depending on graft type and defect morphology. Autogenous grafts showed the highest predictability for extensive defects but had the highest donor site morbidity. GBR with xenograft–autogenous mixtures provided stable horizontal augmentation with fewer complications. Growth factor–enhanced xenografts and Ti-reinforced d-PTFE membranes offered promising results in selected cases.

Conclusions

Graft selection can be guided by defect size, patient comorbidity, and morbidity tolerance. The clinical decision-making table serves as a provisional, evidence-informed reference to assist clinicians in thinking through graft choices.