IADR Abstract Archives
Factors Associated with Alveolar Bone Graft Success for Implant Rehabilitation
Objectives: To compare bone graft success rate, implant survival rate, and peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) among different alveolar bone grafts, and to identify factors associated with bone graft success, implant survival, and MBL
Methods: This retrospective study was conducted on the treatment outcomes of 115 patients with alveolar bone grafts for implant rehabilitation performed during 2007-2016 in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University. Primary predictors were types of bone graft. As outcome variables, bone graft success rate (Barone Criteria) and implant survival rate (Pisa Implant Health Scale) were recorded. Moreover, MBL was measured by the difference between the height of implant body to the height of alveolar bone around implant in periapical radiographs (ImageJ) at 3-6 months(T1), 12-15 months(T2) and 21-24 months(T3) after implant installation. Influences of secondary predictors related to patient (age, gender, systemic health, history of head and neck radiation, anti-osteoresorptive drug therapy, smoking), bone graft (surgery technique, adjunctive membrane use, anatomic location), and implant (placement protocol related to bone graft, crestal morphology, dimension) were determined.
Results: In mean follow-up 40 months (range 1-10 years), overall bone graft success rate (n=177) revealed 97.7% (autograft 98%, allograft 95.8%, xenograft 100%, synthetic graft 90.9%, composite graft 96.3%; logistic regression analysis, p=0.68) and overall implant survival rate (n=226) showed 99.1% (autograft, allograft, and synthetic graft 100%, xenograft 98.7%, composite graft 97.1%; log-rank test, p=.01). Comparing MBL between T1-T2, T2-T3 and T1-T3, Wilcoxon-Sign-Rank test demonstrated significant increased MBL in autograft, allograft, and xenograft (p<0.001), and synthetic and composite grafts (p<0.05). Two-year MBL of autograft, allograft, xenograft, synthetic graft, and composite graft were 0.93±0.63mm, 0.65±0.59mm, 0.92±0.74mm, 1.31±0.08mm, and 0.62±0.39mm, respectively (Kruskal-Wallis test; p=0.12). However, none of the secondary predictors correlated with studied outcomes (p>0.05).
Conclusions: Based on the available data, it would be summarized that autograft can be preferred for implant rehabilitation.
Methods: This retrospective study was conducted on the treatment outcomes of 115 patients with alveolar bone grafts for implant rehabilitation performed during 2007-2016 in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University. Primary predictors were types of bone graft. As outcome variables, bone graft success rate (Barone Criteria) and implant survival rate (Pisa Implant Health Scale) were recorded. Moreover, MBL was measured by the difference between the height of implant body to the height of alveolar bone around implant in periapical radiographs (ImageJ) at 3-6 months(T1), 12-15 months(T2) and 21-24 months(T3) after implant installation. Influences of secondary predictors related to patient (age, gender, systemic health, history of head and neck radiation, anti-osteoresorptive drug therapy, smoking), bone graft (surgery technique, adjunctive membrane use, anatomic location), and implant (placement protocol related to bone graft, crestal morphology, dimension) were determined.
Results: In mean follow-up 40 months (range 1-10 years), overall bone graft success rate (n=177) revealed 97.7% (autograft 98%, allograft 95.8%, xenograft 100%, synthetic graft 90.9%, composite graft 96.3%; logistic regression analysis, p=0.68) and overall implant survival rate (n=226) showed 99.1% (autograft, allograft, and synthetic graft 100%, xenograft 98.7%, composite graft 97.1%; log-rank test, p=.01). Comparing MBL between T1-T2, T2-T3 and T1-T3, Wilcoxon-Sign-Rank test demonstrated significant increased MBL in autograft, allograft, and xenograft (p<0.001), and synthetic and composite grafts (p<0.05). Two-year MBL of autograft, allograft, xenograft, synthetic graft, and composite graft were 0.93±0.63mm, 0.65±0.59mm, 0.92±0.74mm, 1.31±0.08mm, and 0.62±0.39mm, respectively (Kruskal-Wallis test; p=0.12). However, none of the secondary predictors correlated with studied outcomes (p>0.05).
Conclusions: Based on the available data, it would be summarized that autograft can be preferred for implant rehabilitation.