Next Article in Journal
Mediterranean Diet a Potential Strategy against SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Narrative Review
Previous Article in Journal
Topical Application of Galgeunhwanggeumhwangryeon-Tang Recovers Skin-Lipid Barrier and Ameliorates Inflammation via Filaggrin-Thymic Stromal Lymphopoietin-Interleukin 4 Pathway
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Survival Rates of Dental Implants in Autogenous and Allogeneic Bone Blocks: A Systematic Review

1
Department of Oral Surgery and Dental Emergency Care, Faculty of Health, School of Dentistry, Witten/Herdecke University, 58448 Witten, Germany
2
Faculty of Mathematics and Statistics, Carinthia University of Applied Sciences, Europastrasse 4, 9524 Villach, Austria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Medicina 2021, 57(12), 1388; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57121388
Submission received: 14 October 2021 / Revised: 11 November 2021 / Accepted: 14 December 2021 / Published: 20 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Topic State-of-the-Art Dentistry and Oral Health)

Abstract

:
Background and Objectives: Preliminary studies emphasize the similar performance of autogenous bone blocks (AUBBs) and allogeneic bone blocks (ALBBs) in pre-implant surgery; however, most of these studies include limited subjects or hold a low level of evidence. The purpose of this review is to test the hypothesis of indifferent implant survival rates (ISRs) in AUBB and ALBB and determine the impact of various material-, surgery- and patient-related confounders and predictors. Materials and Methods: The national library of medicine (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were screened for studies reporting the ISRs of implants placed in AUBB and ALBB with ≥10 participants followed for ≥12 months from January 1995 to November 2021. The review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed via several scoring tools, dependent on the study design. Means of sub-entities were presented as violin plots. Results: An electronic data search resulted in the identification of 9233 articles, of which 100 were included in the quantitative analysis. No significant difference (p = 0.54) was found between the ISR of AUBB (96.23 ± 5.27%; range: 75% to 100%; 2195 subjects, 6861 implants) and that of ALBB (97.66 ± 2.68%; range: 90.1% to 100%; 1202 subjects, 3434 implants). The ISR in AUBB was increased in blocks from intraoral as compared to extraoral donor sites (p = 0.0003), partially edentulous as compared to totally edentulous (p = 0.0002), as well as in patients younger than 45 as compared to those older (p = 0.044), cortical as compared to cortico-cancellous blocks (p = 0.005) and in delayed implantations within three months as compared to immediate implantations (p = 0.018). The ISR of ALBB was significantly increased in processed as compared to fresh-frozen ALBB (p = 0.004), but also in horizontal as compared to vertical augmentations (p = 0.009). Conclusions: The present findings widely emphasize the feasibility of achieving similar ISRs with AUBB and ALBB applied for pre-implant bone grafting. ISRs were negatively affected in sub-entities linked to more extensive augmentation procedures such as bone donor site and dentition status. The inclusion and pooling of literature with a low level of evidence, the absence of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing AUBB and ALBB and the limited count of comparative studies with short follow-ups increases the risk of bias and complicates data interpretation. Consequently, further long-term comparative studies are needed.

1. Introduction

Contemporary implant-borne prosthetics represent the benchmark for dental restorations regarding both aesthetics and improvements in the quality of life [1,2]. However, prolonged edentulism, periodontal disease, tumor and cyst resection, trauma and/or infection may cause severe bone loss and render implantation inaccessible [3,4]. Despite several implant-associated innovations, including the development of materials with greater Young’s modulus than conventional titanium [5], implant surface modification [6] or the introduction of narrow and short implants [7], pre-implant bone regeneration is often inevitable, as emphasized by an analysis of 10,158 implants which revealed a bone grafting frequency of 58.2% [8]. Various grafting materials and techniques have been introduced to restore lost bone tissue and facilitate implantation, and former comparative studies have reported similarly favorable outcomes for implants in pristine or augmented bone; however, one study found implant survival rates (ISRs) of 90% for implants in native bone and 79% for implants in grafted bone following ten years of healing [9], whereas others have reported cumulative ISRs of 94.1% for implants in native and 100% for those placed in grafted bone [10].
Grafting materials with the intrinsic capacity of producing new bone tissue via vital osteoblasts are called osteogenic, whereas grafting materials stimulating the differentiation of progenitor cells into osteogenic cells, which is most frequently mediated by growth factors such as bone morphogenetic protein-2, have osteoinductive properties, and materials solely functioning as a scaffold by stabilizing the defect area and providing structural support for new bone formation are termed osteoconductive [11]. Autogenous bone grafts exhibit all three characteristics, whereas most commercially available bone substitute materials are only osteoconductive [12]. The most obvious disadvantage of autogenous bone grafts is the bone harvesting procedure and the associated donor site morbidity, whereby harvesting from extraoral sites, including the iliac crest, is associated with a considerably increased risk of complications and patient burden as compared to bone harvesting from intraoral sites, especially the ramus [13,14,15]. In this context, pain score analysis of patients enrolled in a study comparing bone augmentation carried out with autogenous bone blocks (AUBBs) and allogeneic bone blocks (ALBBs) was in favor of patients who were treated with ALBBs and was concomitant with a higher willingness to undergo the procedure again [16].
Allografts are manufactured from deceased or living human bone donors, which were established to combat the challenges of availability and harvesting of autogenous bone and donor site morbidity [17]. Due to their physicochemical properties, which widely resemble those of autografts, and similar clinical outcomes, allografts have been proposed to represent the best option for autografts [18,19]. Implant dehiscence and minor horizontal bone defects are predictably restorable with various granular bone substitute materials in most instances, whereas the treatment of complex osseous defects spanning multiple teeth or entire jaws requires extensive measures such as titanium meshes or block bone grafts [20]. Regarding the application of solid bone blocks, solely allogeneic bone blocks (ALBBs) have been demonstrated to result in comparably favorable outcomes to autogenous bone blocks (AUBBs), whereas clinical data of xenogeneic or alloplastic block grafts are vastly limited and generally discourage their application [21,22,23]. In a previous review, Nevins et al. reported an ISR of 97.5% for 526 implants followed from 6 to more than 74 months post-loading, irrespective of the application of autogenous or allogeneic bone blocks [24]. Another systematic review by Motamedian et al. found ISRs ranging from 73.8% to 100% for autogenous and 95.3% to 100% for allogeneic bone blocks [25], which is consistent with the findings reported in other reviews [26,27,28].
Most previous reviews solely include a small set of the available literature, do not provide statistical analyses and/or denote a lack of evidence in order to draw conclusions on the performance of AUBBs and ALBBs in pre-implant augmentative surgery; therefore, we chose to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the ISR subjected to the effect of confounders. With the establishment of sub-entities, the impact of bone donor site, type of allograft, the cortical and cancellous composition, inlay and onlay bone grafting, applications of barrier membranes and relining materials, horizontal and vertical bone defects, dental status and age of the patients, graft location, graft consolidation times and follow-up duration were considered in the statistical analysis. Through this approach, combined with the inclusion of the broad scope of available information, we sought to further the understanding on the feasibilities and limitations of autogenous and allogeneic bone blocks in pre-implant augmentative surgery.

2. Materials and Methods

This systematic review was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines with the purpose of evaluating the ISRs of implants in autogenous and allogeneic bone blocks used for pre-implant surgery [29]. Registration at PROSPERO was no longer feasible due to changes in guidelines during our review process; therefore, we researched their database, but could not identify protocols resembling ours. We used the PICO (Patient—Intervention—Comparison—Outcome) framework to elaborate the following question: Does a significant difference between the survival rate of implants placed into autogenous and allogeneic bone blocks applied for pre-implant augmentations exist, and which impacts do various material-, surgical- and patient-related confounders and predictors elicit? The ISRs of systemically healthy patients who underwent bone regeneration with AUBBs were compared to the ISRs of those who received ALBBs for bone regeneration.

2.1. Search Strategy

The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE-PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database) databases were searched from 1 January 1995 to 7 November 2021 using the following terms: “implant survival”, “bone allograft”, “alveolar bone grafting”, “autogenous bone graft”, “bone augmentation”, and the MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) term (“Bone Transplantation” OR “Alveolar Bone Grafting”[MeSH] OR “Alveolar Ridge Augmentation”[MeSH]) AND (“Dental Implants”[MeSH] OR “Dental Implantation”[MeSH]) AND (“Graft resorption”[MeSH] OR “Survival Rate”[MeSH]) AND (“Transplantation, Autogenous”[MeSH] OR “Transplantation, Homologous”[MeSH]). If applicable, the following set of filters was used: Clinical Study, Clinical Trial, Comparative Study, Controlled Clinical Trial, Multicentre Study, Observational Study; Dental Journals; Human applications. This literature search was supplemented by a hand search of the following journals: Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Clinical Oral Implants Research, Implant Dentistry, the Journal of Clinical Periodontology, the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, the Journal of Periodontology, the Journal of Oral Implantology, and the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, and cross-checking the reference lists of selected studies and review articles to identify additional publications eligible for inclusion.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows:
  • Studies on human subjects;
  • Publications in English;
  • Randomized controlled clinical trials, controlled clinical trials, prospective and retrospective clinical studies reporting the application of autogenous and allogeneic bone blocks;
  • Studies describing the implant survival rate in at least 10 study subjects;
  • Studies following implants for at least 12 months.
The exclusion criteria were as follows:
  • Animal studies;
  • Publications of identical data in follow-up studies;
  • Previous data of identical cohorts in older publications;
  • Non-English publications;
  • Studies on patients suffering from cancer, metabolic, immunologic or other systemic diseases;
  • Studies not reporting absolute implant survival rates.

2.3. Screening Process and Study Selection

Abstracts of articles derived from the literature search were screened for eligibility criteria, and if these were met, the full texts were acquired for in-depth analyses. The first reviewer (P.D.) conducted the primary screening and preselection of studies presumably meeting the inclusion criteria. In cases of missing useful elements in the title or abstract, studies were processed for full-text analysis. Following the initial screening process, the other two reviewers (K.B. and J.J.) independently evaluated the preselected studies. All studies that met the inclusion criteria were processed for validity assessments to identify ineligible records and duplicates. The remaining studies were forwarded for quality assessment and data extraction.

2.4. Data Collection and Assessment

Data were extracted by the first reviewer (P.D.) and controlled independently by two other investigators (K.B. and J.J.). Heterogeneity between the selected studies and the included study populations was assessed by recording the following items:
  • Study design;
  • Graft type/donor site;
  • Cortical/cancellous composition;
  • Inlay/onlay grafting;
  • Materials for resorption protection;
  • Horizontal/vertical bone defect;
  • Dentition status;
  • Treatment in the mandible/maxilla;
  • Mean age of patients;
  • Mean time to implantation;
  • Duration of follow-up.
The outcome of interest was the ISR, which was assessed from implants failing within a follow-up period of at least 12 months post-insertion. If the mean follow-up was not available, the shortest time span reported was considered for all implants. Implant success criteria were heterogeneously defined among studies and less frequently reported; therefore, no analysis of these was conducted. The effect of confounders, namely, graft type (GT; CV, calvaria; CH, chin; IC, iliac crest; RA, ramus, FFBA, fresh-frozen bone allograft; PBA, [wet chemico-physically] processed bone allograft; DFDBA, demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft; FDBA, freeze-dried bone allograft; SDBA, solvent-dehydrated bone allograft), the cortical and cancellous composition of the graft material (Co/Ca/CoCa), inlay and onlay block grafting (in/on), application and type of resorption barriers (RB; PTFE, polytetrafluoroethylene membrane; RCM, resorbable collagen membrane; RL, relining of the graft with granular material; Ti-MH, titanium mesh; TS, tenting screw), horizontal and vertical bone augmentations/defect type (DT; H/HV), dentition status (DS; PE, partially edentulous; TE, totally edentulous), grafting location (GL; Mn, mandible; Mx, maxilla) as well as age (<45 years, young; ≥45 years, old), immediate, early and late implant insertion after grafting (i.i.; e.i., <6 months; l.i, ≥6 months), and short and long follow-up times (SFUP/LFUP) was separately analyzed when at least five studies were eligible for inclusion.
Differently from a former systematic review [30], statistics were not calculated with weighted means but with means reported for individual study groups. We assumed that withdrawing the impact of weighting would lower the risk of bias caused by the surgeon, because monocentric studies with large patient collectives may determine a large proportion of the overall value with this method. Results were illustrated as truncated violin plots, because these depict a comprehensive overview on the distribution of individual data by the shape of the violin body, which alleviates the identification of similar or equal datasets included for establishing distinct subgroups (Figure 1).

2.5. Quality Assessment and Risk of Bias

Studies with different levels of evidence and various study designs were included in this analysis; therefore, a uniform assessment tool based on the National Institute of Health (NIH) quality assessment tool for case series studies was employed for the assessment of all studies. To improve quality assessments throughout different types of studies, the catalogue of nine items was adapted into three, namely, “study design”, “presence of a registered study protocol” and “sample size”. The overall number of points assessed for each study was divided by the number of applied items to calculate the quality score. Studies with 80% and above were rated as “good”, those with 60–79% were rated as “fair” and studies with a score of 59% and below were rated “poor”.
Comparative studies were additionally evaluated by the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) [31], which was developed to assess the quality of cohort-studies; however, it widely overlaps with the items of the modified NIH (mNIH) scoring tool. The Jadad scale [32], which comprises seven items specifically addressing randomization, blinding and follow-up, was also implemented as a second scoring tool for RCTs. A detailed overview of the applied quality assessment tools and scoring of all studies included is provided in Appendices C–H. Quality assessment was conducted by the first reviewer (P.D.) and controlled by two independent reviewers (J.J. and K.B.).

2.6. Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted by the first reviewer (P.D.) and subsequently controlled by an additional reviewer and statistics professor (A.K.-B.). The Shapiro–Wilk test (SWT) was applied to check for data distribution; for singular comparisons of parametric datasets, the unpaired Student’s t-test was conducted, whereas the Mann–Whitney U test (MWU) was applied for nonparametric data. The overall mean calculated for autogenous and allogeneic bone blocks was compared to that of each respective subgroup. Depending on the distribution of data, either an ANOVA (analysis of variance) in combination with an uncorrected Fisher’s LSD test or the Kruskal–Wallis test together with an uncorrected Dunn’s test was applied for the comparison of the overall ISR with the respective subgroups to test the hypothesis of different ISRs in AUBBs as compared to the individual sub-entities. We chose uncorrected tests because we considered each comparison to be independent; additionally, because the α correction is calculated by the number of comparisons being carried out, an uneven number of established sub-entities would impact significances and, consequently, cause bias. Corresponding subgroups established for AUBB and ALBB were subjected to intergroup comparisons, whereas distinct subgroups of AUBB and ALBB were compared in intragroup analysis.
In cases of three or more interdependent values within one study item, e.g., cancellous, cortical, and cortico-cancellous AUBB, multiple comparisons with correction were carried out so that analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni correction could be applied for parametric data and the Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s correction (KWT) could be used for non-parametric data. The overall ISR of AUBB was compared with the overall ISR of ALBB, but also to that calculated for FFBA and PBA, because these represent the two sub-entities solely related to the material quality of ALBB; similarly, the overall ISR obtained for ALBB was compared to that of AUBB harvested from intra- and extraoral donor sites, whereby statistics were again calculated via corrected ANOVA or KWT. Significance was set at p < 0.05. GraphPad Prism 9 software (GraphPad Software, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) was used for statistical analysis in this systematic review.

3. Results

3.1. Selected Studies

The electronic database and hand research resulted in the identification of 9233 articles, of which 8567 remained following the removal of duplicates. After screening titles and abstracts, 8392 studies were excluded and 175 studies were processed for full-text analysis, which resulted in the exclusion of another 36 studies; as a result, 139 studies remained for the qualitative synthesis in this review. A total of 100 studies, of which 71, 23 and 6 reported results associated with autogenous, allogeneic and both type of bone blocks, respectively, were included into the quantitative synthesis. A table of excluded studies with the reasons for exclusion is provided in Appendix B. There were 14 and 24 RCTs and controlled cohort-studies associated with AUBB, respectively, whereas 2 RCTs and 7 cohort-studies associated with ALBB were identified. A PRISMA flowchart diagram of the screening process is depicted below (Figure 2). Studies associated with AUBB were identified from the year 1996 onwards, whereas the first studies of ALBB suitable for inclusion were published one decade later (Appendix A).

3.2. Study Quality

The calculated mean mNIH, NOS and Jadad scores of studies associated with AUBB were 70%, 83% and 61%, respectively, whereas those scores for studies regarding ALBB were 80%, 100% and 70%, respectively. The mNIH and NOS scores of studies comparing AUBB and ALBB were 0.69% and 92% (Appendix H). Overall, the rating of all studies associated with AUBB was “fair” when assessed by the mNIH score and “good” when assessed via the NOS score, whereas both mNIH and NOS for studies associated with ALBB were “good”. According to the mNIH score, 17 studies (22%) on AUBB were rated “poor”, 48 (62%) were rated “fair” and 12 were rated “good”. As for ALBB, 2 studies (7%) were rated “poor”, 19 (65%) were rated “fair” and 8 (28%) were rated “good”. Studies reporting outcomes of AUBB lost most points due to the absence of or failure to mention a registered study protocol (66%), followed by the missing consecutiveness of treated subjects (48%), weak sample size (44%) and a retrospective study design (44%). A total of 30 (39%) studies conducted with AUBB had a follow-up exceeding 36 months, 14 (18%) studies ranged between 25 and 36 months and 33 (43%) had a follow-up of 12 to 24 months (Appendix F). As for ALBB, most points were deducted because of a lack of information on whether study subjects were treated consecutively (66%) followed by a retrospective study design (38%), a follow-up of less than 24 months (34%), sample sizes of fewer than 20 subjects (34%) and absence of a registered study protocol (31%; Appendix G). Regarding the evaluation via NOS, 72% of studies on AUBB lost one point because they did not control for an additional factor or outcome, and 50% lost one point because the outcome of interest was already present at the start. All RCTs included in this analysis were labelled as such; hence, they were all awarded one point for randomization according to the Jadad scale. However, 71% and 50% of the included RCTs on AUBB and ALBB, respectively, did not mention a blinding method. Additionally, 43% and 50% of studies either failed to mention blinding or blinding was not conducted (Appendix F and Appendix G).

3.3. Implant Survival Rate

A total of 77 studies reported a mean ISR of 96.23 ± 5.19% (range: 75% to 100%) associated with 6861 implants placed within 2397 AUBBs applied in 2195 patients (1.1 grafts/patient; 3.1 implants/patient; 2.9 implants/graft) with a mean follow-up of 38.3 ± 36.7 (range: 12 to 144) months, whereas 29 studies reported the survival rate of 3434 implants placed in 1384 ALBBs used for bone regeneration in 1202 subjects (1.2 grafts/patient; 2.9 implants/patient; 2.5 implants/graft) with a mean follow-up of 25.1 ± 10 (range: 12 to 60) months, which was 97.74 ± 2.67% (range: 90.1% to 100%; Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3). Statistical analysis indicated no significant difference between the overall ISRs of AUBB and ALBB (p = 0.54; Table 4). The mean graft consolidation time until implantation was 5.00 ± 1.36 months, and the mean age of subjects was 50.06 ± 8.31 years for studies reporting ISR in AUBB and 5.93 ± 1.01 months and 47.97 ± 11.64 years for studies reporting ISR associated with ALBB. Due to the larger range of ISRs, the violins of groups established for AUBB were elongated when compared to ALBB. The violin plot analysis demonstrated that apart from one sub-entity established for AUBB, namely, immediate implant placement, the median ISRs of all established sub-entities were above 95% (Figure 3).
The Shapiro–Wilk test indicated a nonparametric distribution of the dataset (p < 0.0001), whereas the Kruskal–Wallis test was applied to test for potential differences regarding the overall ISR of AUBB and the individual sub-entities and indicated a highly significant difference between the overall ISR of AUBB and all established sub-entities (p < 0.0001; Table 4). The subsequent multiple comparison analysis via the uncorrected Dunn’s test indicated that the ISRs significantly increased in intraoral (p = 0.045), ramus (p = 0.011) and cortical (p = 0.048) AUBBs as well as in AUBBs covered with a barrier membrane (p = 0.021) and AUBBs applied in partially edentulous patients (p = 0.049) when compared to the overall ISR of AUBB. Additionally, the ISRs in extraorally harvested (p = 0.023) and iliac crest (p = 0.035) grafts were significantly lower as compared to the overall ISR of AUBB, similarly to the ISRs in totally edentulous patients (p = 0.021) and survival of immediate implants (p = 0.023). The Kruskal–Wallis test indicated no statistically significant difference when comparing the overall ISR of implants in ALBB with all established sub-entities (p = 0.342), although a significantly increased ISR for horizontal bone augmentations (p = 0.022) as compared to the overall ISR of ALBB was detected by multiple comparison analysis via the uncorrected Dunn’s test (Table 4).
The Mann–Whitney U test, which was applied to detect for significance between the two study entities, indicated that the overall ISR of implants in ALBB was significantly higher than that of implants inserted into AUBB harvested from extraoral (p = 0.002), but not from intraoral (p = 0.94; Table 5) donor sites. Likewise, the ISR in grafts harvested from intraoral sites was significantly increased as compared to the ISR in grafts from extraoral donor sites (p = 0.0003), similarly to ISR in cortical as compared to cortico-cancellous (p = 0.005) AUBB. Additionally, the ISR in totally edentulous patients treated with AUBB was significantly lower than that of partially edentulous patients (p = 0.0002) receiving AUBB for pre-implant bone regeneration, but also for blocks covered with relining materials as compared to AUBB solely covered with membranes (p = 0.019) in patients older than 45 years as compared to younger patients (p = 0.044), and in early implantations within five months of healing as compared to immediate implantation procedures (p = 0.018). Regarding ALBB, the Mann–Whitney U test demonstrated a significantly increased ISR in processed ALBB as compared to fresh-frozen ALBB (p = 0.004) and for implants inserted in ALBB used for horizontal as compared to vertical bone augmentation procedures (p = 0.009; Table 5; Figure 3).

4. Discussion

4.1. Study Selection and Quality Assessment

Although a slightly higher quality was assessed for studies reporting the results of ALBB as compared to AUBB with each of the three evaluation tools applied, the variations were negligible. Studies assessed via the NOS exhibited an increased quality, whereas studies assessed via the Jadad scale had a decreased quality when compared with their respective mNIH scores. Considering that the most frequent items responsible for quality degradation were the absence of a registered study protocol, missing consecutiveness, and weak sample sizes, which are all items not being analyzed with the NOS, it is obvious why studies exhibited a higher score with this tool (Appendix C and Appendix D). As in the Jadad scale points, are deducted in cases of missing items of interest, the absence of mentioning blinding, which applied to the majority of included RCTs, and the concomitant fail to mention the blinding method, which resulted in two out of five points not being awarded, and additionally, one point being deducted. Consequently, even if all other items were fulfilled by the respective study, the overall score would only be 40%. Therefore, it is obvious why the mean Jadad score of RCTs was lower as compared with their corresponding mean mNIH scores. Studies on ISR in AUBB were identified one decade earlier than studies reporting ISR in ALBB, which is the main reason for the increased count of studies reporting results about AUBB (Appendix A).
Only 6 [16,126,127,128,129,130] out of the 100 included studies were direct comparisons of AUBB and ALBB; no RCTs were among these studies, and none was carried out in a split-mouth fashion (Appendix E). Additionally, the fact that the preliminary data selection was exclusively conducted by the primary investigator increased the risk of selection bias. Due to these shortcomings and the heterogeneity among the identified studies, which poses a known issue related to this subject and has previously been reported by others [131], we decided to refrain from the conduction of a meta-analysis but performed simple statistical tests with the values obtained for the established sub-entities similar, to a previous systematic review [30]. The assessed overall mNIH scores were 70% (fair) for AUBB and 80% (good) for ALBB and indicated a moderate risk of bias among the selected studies. In this context, it should be noted that all included studies were published in peer-reviewed medical journals; thus, all data have previously been controlled by third parties. The compromise for the generation of this large dataset was the inclusion and pooling of results from studies with varying study designs, defect morphologies and locations, graft types and compositions as well as follow-up durations; therefore, the results presented here should be further validated by randomized and controlled clinical trials.

4.2. Implant Survival Rate

The survival of implants within grafting materials is probably the most crucial analysis, because the main purpose of bone grafting procedures is dental rehabilitation, which should last decades, and ideally, a lifetime. As for AUBB, two studies reported implant survival rates (ISRs) below 80% for cortico-cancellous iliac grafts with simultaneous [34] and delayed implants [74] in the maxilla, and both studies included totally edentulous patients. Both authors reasoned the loss of implants with marginal bone resorption, which was demonstrated to be increased within the first three years. Astrand et al. concluded that proceeding with the resorption of AUBB, especially with grafts exhibiting large amounts of cortical bone, which is impervious to vascular infiltration, is one major challenge for the predictability and the long-term success of implants in AUBB [34]. In this context, Molly et al. reported a significantly decreased marginal bone resorption of less than 1 mm associated with implants inserted into bone which was regenerated via titanium foil without a grafting material when compared to the marginal bone loss of implants placed in cortico-cancellous AUBB, which was 2.7 mm after 20 years, and hence demonstrated ongoing block resorption [74].
A cohort study comparing the survival of implants placed in jaws augmented with cortico-cancellous iliac blocks covered by an RCM (resorbable collagen membrane) alone or by an RCM combined with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM), reported ISRs of 99.2% and 98.8%, respectively, but due to the significantly lower resorption the authors observed in the DBBM group, they reasoned that graft covering with non-resorbable materials might be beneficial regarding long-term outcomes, whereby follow-up in this study did not exceed 24 months; thus, this was insufficient for a definitive conclusion [101]. A previous study of the same group reporting a 91.5% 5-year implant survival rate with uncovered iliac grafts which emphasized their conclusion [102]. Additionally, Tunkel and De Stavola made similar observations when covering augmentation sites restored via the shell technique with DBBM at the time of implant insertion, which they established as the “delayed relining technique” [131]. In contrast to these findings, an RCT reported 2-year ISRs of 100% for a cohort receiving uncovered AUBB, but also AUBB covered with DBBM and an RCM, whereby the authors described higher complication rates associated with the application of barrier materials [48]. Two RCTs reported slightly reduced ISRs within cortico-cancellous chinbone [71] and ramus [60] grafts covered with DBBM and an RCM as compared to uncovered grafts, whereby the authors of both studies stated that all applied augmentation techniques resulted in comparably favorable outcomes. In our analysis, we also found an increased implant failure rate for implants inserted into relined AUBB as compared to blocks covered only by an RCM (p = 0.021); however, the ISR of uncovered AUBB was lower than that of grafts covered by membranes and/or granular materials, whereby the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.071). One important issue might be the difference between graft relining and graft overcontouring. Relining is based on a thin layer of volume-stable grafting material, whereas overcontouring marks the extending of the graft beyond the bony envelope, which has been demonstrated to be accompanied by increased complication rates [132]. Further controlled cohort studies with long-term follow-up should investigate the impact of graft relining.
Regarding the relevance of the bone donor site and the patient’s dentition, Raghoebar et al. reported an ISR of 100% for partially edentulous patients receiving cortico-cancellous AUBB harvested from intraoral sites, whereas an ISR of 95.6% was found for totally edentulous patients treated with bone blocks from the iliac crest [82,83]. These findings strongly correlate with the results from our statistical analysis, which demonstrated significantly increased ISRs in grafts harvested from intraoral as compared to extraoral donor sites, and likewise, in grafts harvested from the ramus as compared to those harvested from the iliac crest. The significantly increased ISR calculated for cortical as compared to cortico-cancellous AUBB is strongly linked to these findings because, other than cortico-cancellous iliac grafts, ramus grafts are mostly monocortical. Totally edentulous patients are more often subjected to bone augmentation with grafts harvested from extraoral donor sites than partially edentulous patients; therefore, ISRs calculated for implants in partially edentulous patients were significantly increased. In this context, the significantly lower ISRs of implants in AUBB determined for patients older than 45 as compared to those of younger patients may, on one hand, result from age-related causes, but also from the extensive crossover of this dataset with that of the totally edentulous group. Statistical analysis indicated a significantly lower ISR for immediate implants as compared to delayed implants placed within five months of healing, but not as compared to implants inserted following six or more months of graft consolidation, which makes sense considering that extraoral bone grafts have prolonged healing times and, hence, are stronger represented in the late implantation group, whereby some authors reported similar ISRs for immediate and delayed implants [77,78,80].
Implant survival rates in all studies associated with the application of ALBB were above 90%, whereby the lowest survival, which mainly resulted from insufficient primary implant stability, was reported for implants inserted into FFBA onlay blocks applied without resorption barriers [115]. The second lowest ISRs of 94.03% were also reported for cortico-cancellous FFBA blocks. The inclusion of full-arch reconstructions, and thus, complex bone augmentations with extensive bone volumes, for which statistical analyses of AUBBs already indicated lower ISRs as compared to segmental reconstructions in partially edentulous patients, is one putative reason for the rather low ISRs reported in this study [111]. Studies reporting results associated with totally edentulous patients were exclusively conducted with FFBA, and 90% of these included vertical defects, for which our analysis indicated a significantly lower ISR as compared to implants inserted in ALBB applied for horizontal bone defects. This, in turn, provides an explanation for the significantly increased ISR found for processed bone allografts (PBAs) as compared to FFBA blocks. In two independent studies by the same authors, ISRs of 98.3% and 96.3% were reported for cortico-cancellous and cortical FFBA block grafts, respectively [107,108], whereas other authors reported 2-year ISRs of 100% for cortico-cancellous and cortical FDBA blocks alike [125], which further emphasizes the results of the statistical analysis in this review (Table 5). Nissan and Chaushu also analyzed survival rates of up to three years for implants inserted into cancellous FDBA blocks, which ranged from 95.2% for restored congenitally missing teeth in the maxilla, whereby only one immediately loaded implant failed [120], to 100% for implants inserted into the augmented anterior mandible [117].
Regarding comparative cohort studies, Al-Abedalla et al. reported similar ISRs for implants in native bone, AUBB and ALBB; additionally, the authors found striking similarities in the tissue composition in histologic specimens of pristine bone and specimens recovered from the augmented area [126]. Chiapasco et al. found 100% 2-year ISRs for cortico-cancellous AUBBs applied for full-arch reconstructions in the maxilla, whereas the ISR of the cohort treated with cortico-cancellous FFBA blocks was 90.1% due to increased complications, graft exposure and uncontrollable resorption. The authors concluded that FFBA does not represent a safe alternative to AUBB [128], which they substantiated by a further study with corresponding results [128]. An implant survival rate of 100% was reported for implants inserted into both cortical AUBB and cortico-cancellous FFBA blocks applied for horizontal bone augmentations in two separate studies by the same authors [34,103], which emphasizes the feasibility of achieving similar results with AUBB and ALBB following the regeneration of horizontal bone defects. An ISR of 100% for both cohorts was reported by all comparative studies on AUBB and processed allogeneic bone blocks. Kloss et al. compared the 1-year ISR of implants in cancellous FDBA blocks with that of AUBB harvested from the ramus for horizontal augmentations in single-tooth defects [129], whereas Park et al. reported 2-year ISR following vertical augmentations with cortical AUBB and cortico-cancellous FDBA [130]. Schlee et al. reported a 2-year ISR of 100% for implants inserted into either AUBB harvested from the ramus or pre-milled bone blocks made of cancellous solvent-dehydrated bone allograft used for the augmentation of three-dimensional bone defects [16].
The six comparative cohort studies [16,126,127,128,129,130] presumably represent the most valid source of contemporary information on the clinical performance of AUBB and ALBB; however, none of these was an RCT and three studies had a retrospective study design, which increases the risk of bias. The longest follow-up for allogeneic bone blocks in those comparative studies was limited to 32.9 months [16], i.e., less than three years. Additionally, the mean follow-up for studies reporting ISRs associated with ALBBs was only 25.1 ± 10 months. Regarding AUBB, the longest follow-up in comparative studies was 59.9 months [130]; additionally, the mean follow-up duration of 38.3 ± 36.7 months of studies reporting ISRs in AUBB notably exceeded that of ALBB. The scarce number of studies with long-term follow-up data represents another shortcoming in the interpretation and analysis of the present data, because only 1–2% of implants fail within the first months, whereas 5% of implant failures occur several years after successful osseointegration of the implant, mainly due to peri-implant disease [133]. Although some authors reported increased complication rates with allogeneic bone grafts, especially in vertical augmentations [134], the majority of clinical studies and previous reviews on this matter emphasize that ALBBs represent an adequate alternative to AUBBs, especially concerning processed bone allografts and horizontal bone regeneration procedures. An extensive analysis of complications occurring in 137 ALBBs by Chaushu et al. found 8% of total graft failures due to “membrane exposure”, “incision line opening”, “soft tissue perforations” and “recipient site infections” [135]. These failure items emphasize the most critical factor for success irrespective of the applied graft: proper soft tissue covering of the graft. One factor clearly favoring the application of ALBB over AUBB is the lower overall patient burden, because no bone harvesting is required. Several studies have reported complications associated with bone harvesting and a low willingness of patients to repeat the same procedure [15,136]. Although the complications are limited to temporary but also permanent nerve damages when bone is harvested from intraoral sites in most instances, more severe complications may occur with extraoral bone harvesting [137,138,139].

5. Conclusions

The present findings widely emphasize similar survival rates of implants placed in either autogenous or allogeneic bone blocks. The respective overall ISRs of 96.23 ± 5.27% and 97.66 ± 2.68% determined for AUBB and ALBB indicate high predictability with both these materials in pre-implant augmentative surgery, especially when considering that bone blocks are usually applied for the regeneration of large osseous defects. Ongoing marginal bone loss, which mainly affected extraoral bone grafts in totally edentulous patients older than 45 years, is one challenge associated with AUBB. In this context, limited evidence suggests that the relining of grafts with volume stable materials such as bovine bone mineral may be beneficial for containing graft resorption. Fresh-frozen ALBB resulted in rather unfavorable outcomes in comparative cohort studies comparing them with AUBB, especially regarding vertical augmentations and full-arch reconstructions, whereas the results of processed ALBB were equally comparable with those of AUBB. However, no studies demonstrating the feasibility of full-arch reconstructions with processed ALBB were identified in the literature, and the pooling of studies with different design and study populations, as well as the absence of high-quality comparative studies with long-term follow-up durations, further limit the analysis and interpretation of the present data. Consequently, these preliminary findings should be validated by further comparative long-term studies with high levels of evidence.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.D. and J.J.; methodology, P.D. and A.K.-B.; software, P.D.; validation, P.D., K.B. and J.J.; formal analysis, P.D. and J.J.; investigation P.D., K.B. and J.J.; resources, P.D. and J.J.; data curation, P.D., K.B. and J.J.; writing—original draft preparation, P.D.; writing—review and editing, J.J.; visualization, P.D.; supervision, J.J.; project administration, J.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Primary data including calculations will be provided by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

Phil Donkiewicz is currently employed as a Key Account Manager for the Straumann Group and simultaneously enrolled as a doctoral student at the Witten/Herdecke University. We received no financial support and no free materials from Straumann or any other company for this work, and confirm that the associations with the Straumann group have not impacted the results presented here.

Appendix A

Figure A1. Distribution of the included studies by year of publication.
Figure A1. Distribution of the included studies by year of publication.
Medicina 57 01388 g0a1

Appendix B

Table A1. List of excluded studies with reasons for exclusion.
Table A1. List of excluded studies with reasons for exclusion.
StudyReason for Exclusion
Aghazadeh et al., 2012 [140]Application of granular autograft
Arenaz-Búa et al., 2010 [141]Application of granular autograft
Barboza et al., 2010 [142]Application of allogeneic bone granules
Beitlitum et al., 2018 [143]Application of allogeneic bone granules
Bianconi et al., 2017 [144]Alveolar ridge preservation
Charde et al., 2020 [145]Block used for peri-implant bone regeneration
Naishlos et al., 2021 [146]Blocks used for sinus floor augmentation
Corinaldesi et al., 2009 [147]Application of autogenous bone granules
El Chaar et al., 2019 [148]Application of allogeneic bone granules
Ge et al., 2017 [149]Application of granular autograft
Güven and Tekin, 2006 [150]Wrong indication (cyst filling)
Huang et al., 2016 [151]Application of allogeneic bone granules
Ilankovan et al., 1998 [152]No outcome of interest reported
Jacotti et al., 2012 [153]Sample size too small
Kang et al., 2015 [154]Particulated iliac bone applied with sinus lift
Khoury and Hanser, 2015 [155]No outcome of interest reported
Krasny et al., 2018 [156]Inclusion of patients with follow-up of less than 12 months
Lekholm et al., 1999 [157]Application of different surgical approaches, missing patient information
Lima et al., 2018 [158]Sample size too small
Margonar et al., 2010 [159]Combination of autogenous and allogeneic bone
Mau et al., 2019 [160]Application of granular materials
Merli et al., 2020 [161]Application of granular grafting materials
Morad and Khojasteh, 2013 [162]Sample size too small
Mordenfeld et al., 2017 [163]Application of granular autograft
Özkan et al., 2007 [164]Sample size too small
Pimentel et al., 2014 [165]Sample size too small
Putters et al., 2018 [166]No outcome of interest reported
Quereshy et al., 2010 [167]Sample size too small
Sethi et al., 2020 [168]Inclusion of patients with follow-up < 12 months
Simion et al., 2001 [169]Application of granular materials
Simon et al., 2000 [170]Surgical technique (ARP)
Soehardi et al., 2009 [171]No differentiation between onlay block and sinus floor elevation
Solakoglu et al., 2019 [172]Application of allogeneic bone granules
Stellingsma et al., 2003 [173]No outcome of interest reported
Tresguerres et al., 2021 [174]Inclusion of cancer and metabolic-disease patients
Zou et al., 2015 [175]Treatment of cancer patients

Appendix C. Modified National Institute of Health Quality Assessment Tool (mNIH)

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Study Quality Assessment Tool for Case Series Studies (https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools; accessed on 5 August 2021) was used for assessing the quality of all studies included in the systematic review. The original tool is composed of nine quality-related questions which were adapted by evaluation of the study type, the presence of a registered study protocol and adequacy of the sample size. Furthermore, split points were assigned to the study design, in which RCTs received a score of 1, PSs received a score of 0.5, and RSs and CSs received a score of 0. The item “registered study protocol” was fulfilled when a protocol number was provided or the authors had a striking affiliation with a university clinic and mentioned an existing protocol; however, studies solely stating that the “study protocol was registered” without any further information were attributed 0 points. If studies were missing information regarding their objective, 0.5 points were deducted. Regarding the description of the study population, 0.5 points were deducted when a description of patient age, treated sites, dental status or follow-up times were not fully described, whereby 0 points were given if multiple information points were missing. This was conducted similarly for the comparability of study populations; if the age of the oldest patient was more than twice as high as that of the youngest participant, 0.5 points were deducted. If further striking differences regarding treatment schedules or patient-related factors were found, no points were assigned. If studies reported consecutiveness, they were attributed one point. Depending on the sample size of <20, 20–30 and >30 participants, studies were awarded 0, 0.5 and 1 point, respectively. Clear descriptions of the intervention and outcome measures included precise descriptions of applied materials, surgical techniques and measuring methods together with their chronological conduction. Depending on the amount of information missing, 0, 0.5 or 1 points were assigned for both criteria, respectively. Adequacy of the length of follow-up was set to 1 point for studies reporting more than 36 months, 0.5 for those reporting 25 to 36 months, and 0 for those reporting 24 months or less. Statistical data descriptions were checked for completion and the possibility of reproduction; if information was lacking or the statistical software was not mentioned, 0.5 points were deducted. In cases of an absence of statistical analyses and solely descriptive data being provided, studies were excluded from this item. If results were insufficiently described, no or redundant figures were presented or the data illustration was inconsistent, 0.5 points were deducted, in cases where more criteria for point deductions were fulfilled, no points were assigned. A listing with a color coding of study scoring, in which green resembles 1 point, yellow 0.5 points and red 0 points, was elaborated and is depicted below with an exemplary illustration of the evaluation scheme.
Table A2. Modified NIH Quality Assessment Tool for the case series.
Table A2. Modified NIH Quality Assessment Tool for the case series.
Item10.50Ex.
1. Which study design was chosen?
2. Was there a registered protocol?
3. Was the study question or objective clearly stated?
4. Was the study population clearly and fully described, including a case definition?
5. Were the cases consecutive?
6. Were the subjects comparable?
7. Was the sample size robust (10–19/20–29/30-X)?
8. Was the intervention clearly described?
9. Were the outcome measures clearly defined, valid, reliable and implemented consistently across all study participants?
10. Was the length of follow-up adequate? (12–23/24–35/36-X)
11. Were the statistical methods well-described?
12. Were the results well-described?
Table A3. Evaluation sheet for the mNIH scoring tool with color coding (green = 1 point, yellow = 0.5 points, red = 0 points, blue = item not applicable).
Table A3. Evaluation sheet for the mNIH scoring tool with color coding (green = 1 point, yellow = 0.5 points, red = 0 points, blue = item not applicable).
Author123456789101112Score
Al-Abedalla et al., 2015PS 0.83
Amorfini et al., 2014RCT 0.92

Appendix D. Newcastle–Ottawa Scale

Non-randomized cohort studies were evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), which includes eight quality-associated items in three areas of interest regarding study selection, group comparability and the ascertainment of exposure and outcome [31]. A great consistency in the evaluation item design between the NIH and NOS exists; however, only 1 or 0 points were assigned according to the NOS protocol, so the color coding was either red or green and the final result was divided by eight to obtain the score.
Table A4. Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for the assessment of cohort studies.
Table A4. Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for the assessment of cohort studies.
ItemMaximum Points
1. Representativeness of exposed cohort1
2. Selection of external control1
3. Ascertainment of exposure1
4. Outcome of interest is not present at the start1
5. Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis1
5a. Study controls for an additional factor1
6. Assessment of outcome1
7. Was follow-up long enough for outcome to appear?1
8. Adequate documentation about follow-up of cohorts1
Table A5. Evaluation sheet for the NOS with color coding (green = 1 point, red = 0 points). Overall result of points divided by the number of evaluated items resulted in the quality score.
Table A5. Evaluation sheet for the NOS with color coding (green = 1 point, red = 0 points). Overall result of points divided by the number of evaluated items resulted in the quality score.
Author123455a678Score
Al-Abedalla et al., 2015 1.00
Beitlitum et al., 2010 0.75

Appendix E. Jadad Scale

The quality of randomized controlled trials was assessed by the Jadad scale, which is a simple scoring tool to assess the methodologic quality of clinical trials by three criteria: randomization, blinding and patient follow-up and documentation [32]. The overall achievable score using the Jadad scale is 5 points, if randomization and blinding as well as the fate of all study subjects are mentioned and described, although one point is being deducted if randomization or blinding are inappropriately described or not mentioned; therefore, the following color coding for the evaluation of studies was applied: green = 1 point, yellow = 0 points, and red = −1 point. An exemplary scheme is displayed below.
Table A6. Evaluation sheet for the Jadad scale with color coding (green = 1 point, yellow = 0 points, red = −1 point). Overall result of points divided by the number of evaluated items resulted in the score.
Table A6. Evaluation sheet for the Jadad scale with color coding (green = 1 point, yellow = 0 points, red = −1 point). Overall result of points divided by the number of evaluated items resulted in the score.
Author1234567Score
Amorfini et al., 2014 1.00
Avila-Ortiz et al., 2020 0.80
Table A7. Jadad scale for quality assessment of controlled trials.
Table A7. Jadad scale for quality assessment of controlled trials.
ItemDescriptionMaximum Points
1. RandomizationRandomization is mentioned1
Appropriate randomization method1
Inappropriate randomization method−1
2. BlindingBlinding is mentioned1
Appropriate blinding method1
Inappropriate blinding method−1
3. Account of all patientsFate of all patients in the trial is known and reasoned otherwise1

Appendix F

Table A8. Quality assessment of studies on AUBB via mNIH.
Table A8. Quality assessment of studies on AUBB via mNIH.
Author123456789101112mNIH
Acocella et al., 2010RS 0.46
Altiparmak et al., 2020RS 0.79
Astrand et al., 1996RS 0.50
Bartols et al., 2018RCT 0.92
Bell et al., 2002RS 0.67
Bienz et al., 2020RCT 0.92
Bormann et al., 2010PS 0.73
Bormann et al., 2011RS 0.73
Boronat et al., 2010RS 0.59
Boven et al., 2014RS 0.83
Buser et al., 2002PS 0.83
Chappius et al., 2016PS 0.75
Chiapasco et al., 1999PS 0.53
Chiapasco et al., 2012PS 0.59
Chiapasco et al., 2020RS 0.71
Cordaro et al., 2002PS 0.59
Cordaro et al., 2010PS 0.63
Cordaro et al., 2011RCT 0.79
De Santis et al., 2011PS 0.79
De Stavola and Tunkel, 2013PS 0.73
Dottore et al., 2014PS 0.50
Elo et al., 2009RS 0.67
Esposito et al., 2015RCT 0.67
Felice et al., 2009aRCT 0.63
Felice et al., 2009bRCT 0.79
Gultekin et al., 2017RS 0.75
Guo et al., 2020RS 0.75
Hartlev et al., 2020RCT 0.88
Is¸ık et al., 2020RCT 0.73
Jemt and Lekholm, 2003PS 0.73
Jensen et al., 2006RS 0.55
Kablan, 2020RS 0.50
Kawakami et al., 2014PS 0.67
Keller et al., 1999RS 0.83
Kim et al., 2013RS 0.79
Levin et al., 2007RS 0.67
McCarthy et al., 2003PS 0.54
McGrath et al., 1996RS 0.36
Meijndert et al., 2005PS 0.55
Meijndert et al., 2008RCT 0.88
Mendoza-Azpur et al., 2019RCT 0.83
Mertens et al., 2012RS 0.88
Molly et al., 2006RS 0.75
Nielsen and Jensen, 2020RS 0.79
Nyström et al., 2004PS 0.83
Nyström et al., 2009PS 0.83
Pelo et al., 2010PS 0.63
Penarrocha-Diago et al., 2013RS 0.67
Penarrocha-Oltra et al., 2014RS 0.71
Pistilli et al., 2014RCT 0.79
Raghoebar et al., 1996PS 0.59
Raghoebar et al., 2003PS 0.68
Sbordone et al., 2009RS 0.79
Sbordorne et al., 2015RS 0.63
Schwartz-Arad et al., 2016RS 0.71
Sethi and Kaus, 2001PS 0.67
Sjöström et al., 2007PS 0.79
Smolka et al., 2006PS 0.50
Stellingsma et al., 2014RCT 0.83
Stricker et al., 2021RS 0.63
Thor et al., 2005RCT 0.79
Tosun et al., 2017RS 0.54
Van der Mark et al., 2011RS 0.63
Van der Meij et al., 2005RS 0.64
Van Steenberghe et al., 1997RS 0.63
Verhoeven et al., 1997PS 0.58
Vermeeren et al., 1996PS 0.67
Vinci et al., 2019RS 0.77
Widmark et al., 2001PS 0.55
Wiltfang et al., 2005RS 0.71
Wiltfang et al., 2014PS 0.79
0.74
Table A9. Quality assessment of studies on AUBB via NOS.
Table A9. Quality assessment of studies on AUBB via NOS.
Author123455a678NOS
Altiparmak et al., 2020 0.75
Chiapasco et al., 1999 0.75
Elo et al., 2009 0.50
Gultekin et al., 2017 0.88
Kawakami et al., 2014 1.00
Keller et al., 1999 1.00
Meijndert et al., 2005 0.88
Molly et al., 2006 1.00
Monje et al., 2015 0.88
Penarrocha-Diago et al., 2013 0.75
Penarrocha-Oltra et al., 2014 0.75
Sbordone et al., 2009 0.75
Sbordorne et al., 2015 0.88
Tosun et al., 2017 0.88
Van der Mark et al., 2011 0.75
Widmark et al., 2001 0.88
Wiltfang et al., 2005 0.75
Wiltfang et al., 2014 0.88
0.83
Table A10. Quality assessment of studies on AUBB via Jadad.
Table A10. Quality assessment of studies on AUBB via Jadad.
Author1234567Jadad
Bartols et al., 2018 0.80
Bienz et al., 2020 0.20
Cordaro et al., 2011 0.40
Esposito et al., 2015 1.00
Felice et al., 2009a 0.60
Felice et al., 2009b 1.00
Hartlev et al., 2020 0.80
Isik et al., 2020 0.80
Meijndert et al., 2008 0.20
Mendez et al., 2017 0.40
Mendoza-Azpur et al., 2019 1.00
Pistilli et al., 2014 1.00
Stellingsma et al., 2014 0.20
Thor et al., 2005 0.20
0.61

Appendix G

Table A11. Quality assessment of studies on ALBB via mNIH.
Table A11. Quality assessment of studies on ALBB via mNIH.
Author123456789101112mNIH
Acocella et al., 2012PS 0.63
Ahmadi et al., 2017PS 0.63
Amorfini et al., 2014RCT 0.83
Aslan et al., 2016PS 0.79
Carinci et al., 2009RS 0.67
Carinci et al., 2010RS 0.59
Chaushu et al., 2019PS 0.83
Contar et al., 2009RS 0.50
Deluiz et al., 2016PS 0.88
Dias et al., 2016PS 0.83
Franco et al., 2009RS 0.75
Keith et al., 2006PS 0.64
Maiorana et al., 2016RS 0.73
Chaushu et al., 2009PS 0.63
Nissan et al., 2011aPS 0.75
Nissan et al., 2011bPS 0.79
Nissan et al., 2011cPS 0.82
Nissan et al., 2011dPS 0.88
Nord et al., 2019RS 0.75
Novell et al., 2012RS 0.63
Procopio et al., 2019RS 0.71
Silva et al., 2017PS 0.88
Tresguerres et al., 2019RCT 0.83
0.80
Table A12. Quality assessment of studies on ALBB via NOS.
Table A12. Quality assessment of studies on ALBB via NOS.
Author123455a678NOS
Keith et al., 2006 1.00
1.00
Table A13. Quality assessment of studies on ALBB via NOS.
Table A13. Quality assessment of studies on ALBB via NOS.
Author1234567Jadad
Amorfini et al., 2014 1.00
Tresguerres et al., 2019 0.40
0.70

Appendix H

Table A14. Quality assessment of studies on AUBB and ALBB via mNIH.
Table A14. Quality assessment of studies on AUBB and ALBB via mNIH.
Author123456789101112mNIH
Al-Abedalla et al., 2015PS 0.79
Chiapasco et al., 2015PS 0.71
Dellavia et al., 2016PS 0.60
Kloss et al., 2018RS 0.63
Park et al., 2017RS 0.71
Schlee et al., 2014RS 0.67
0.69
Table A15. Quality assessment of studies on AUBB and ALBB via NOS.
Table A15. Quality assessment of studies on AUBB and ALBB via NOS.
Author123455a678NOS
Al-Abedalla et al., 2015 1.00
Chiapasco et al., 2015 1.00
Dellavia et al., 2016 0.63
Kloss et al., 2018 1.00
Park et al., 2017 1.00
Schlee et al., 2014 0.88
0.92

References

  1. Ellis, J.S.; Pelekis, N.D.; Thomason, J.M. Conventional Rehabilitation of Edentulous Patients: The Impact on Oral Health-Related Quality of Life and Patient Satisfaction. J. Prosthodont. 2007, 16, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Gerritsen, A.; Allen, P.F.; Witter, D.J.; Bronkhorst, E.M.; Creugers, N.H.J. Tooth loss and oral health-related quality of life: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2010, 8, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Karaagaçlioglu, L.; Ozkan, P. Changes in mandibular ridge height in relation to aging and length of edentulism period. Int. J. Prosthodont. 1994, 7, 368–371. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Winkler, S. Implant site development and alveolar bone resorption patterns. J. Oral Implant. 2002, 28, 226–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chiapasco, M.; Casentini, P.; Zaniboni, M.; Corsi, E.; Anello, T. Titanium-zirconium alloy narrow-diameter implants (Straumann Roxolid®) for the rehabilitation of horizontally deficient edentulous ridges: Prospective study on 18 consecutive patients. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2011, 23, 1136–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Orsini, G.; Assenza, B.; Scarano, A.; Piattelli, M.; Piattelli, A. Surface analysis of machined versus sandblasted and acid-etched titanium implants. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2000, 15, 779–784. [Google Scholar]
  7. Renouard, F.; Nisand, D. Short Implants in the Severely Resorbed Maxilla: A 2-Year Retrospective Clinical Study. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2005, 7 (Suppl. 1), s104–s110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Knöfler, W.; Barth, T.; Graul, R.; Krampe, D. Retrospective analysis of 10,000 implants from insertion up to 20 years-analysis of implantations using augmentative procedures. Int. J. Implant. Dent. 2016, 2, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tran, D.T.; Gay, I.C.; Diaz-Rodriguez, J.; Parthasarathy, K.; Weltman, R.; Friedman, L. Survival of Dental Implants Placed in Grafted and Nongrafted Bone: A Retrospective Study in a University Setting. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2016, 31, 310–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Benić, G.I.; Jung, R.E.; Siegenthaler, D.W.; Hämmerle, C.H.F. Clinical and radiographic comparison of implants in regenerated or native bone: 5-year results. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2009, 20, 507–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Albrektsson, T.; Johansson, C. Osteoinduction, osteoconduction and osseointegration. Eur. Spine J. 2001, 10 (Suppl. 2), S96–S101. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  12. Al Ruhaimi, K.A. Bone graft substitutes: A comparative qualitative histologic review of current osteoconductive grafting materials. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implant. 2001, 16, 105–114. [Google Scholar]
  13. Scheerlinck, L.M.E.; Muradin, M.S.; Van Der Bilt, A.; Meijer, G.J.; Koole, R.; Cann, E.M.V.C.V. Donor Site Complications in Bone Grafting: Comparison of Iliac Crest, Calvarial, and Mandibular Ramus Bone. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2013, 28, 222–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Reissmann, D.R.; Dietze, B.; Vogeler, M.; Schmelzeisen, R.; Heydecke, G. Impact of donor site for bone graft harvesting for dental implants on health-related and oral health-related quality of life. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2012, 24, 698–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Reissmann, D.R.; Poxleitner, P.; Heydecke, G. Location, intensity, and experience of pain after intra-oral versus extra-oral bone graft harvesting for dental implants. J. Dent. 2018, 79, 102–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Schlee, M.; Dehner, J.-F.; Baukloh, K.; Happe, A.; Seitz, O.; Sader, R. Esthetic outcome of implant-based reconstructions in augmented bone: Comparison of autologous and allogeneic bone block grafting with the pink esthetic score (PES). Head Face Med. 2014, 10, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mellonig, J.T. Autogenous and Allogeneic Bone Grafts in Periodontal Therapy. Crit. Rev. Oral Biol. Med. 1992, 3, 333–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Berberi, A.; Samarani, A.; Nader, N.; Noujeim, Z.; Dagher, M.; Kanj, W.; Mearawi, R.; Salemeh, Z.; Badran, B. Physicochemical Characteristics of Bone Substitutes Used in Oral Surgery in Comparison to Autogenous Bone. BioMed Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 320790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Monje, A.; Pikos, M.A.; Chan, H.-L.; Suarez, F.; Gargallo-Albiol, J.; Hernández-Alfaro, F.; Galindo-Moreno, P.; Wang, H.-L. On the Feasibility of Utilizing Allogeneic Bone Blocks for Atrophic Maxillary Augmentation. BioMed Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 814578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Wang, H.-L.; Al-Shammari, K. HVC ridge deficiency classification: A therapeutically oriented classification. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2002, 22, 335–343. [Google Scholar]
  21. Schwarz, F.; Mihatovic, I.; Ghanaati, S.; Becker, J. Performance and safety of collagenated xenogeneic bone block for lateral alveolar ridge augmentation and staged implant placement. A monocenter, prospective single-arm clinical study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2016, 28, 954–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Ortiz-Vigón, A.; Suarez, I.; Martínez-Villa, S.; Sanz-Martín, I.; Bollain, J.; Sanz, M. Safety and performance of a novel collagenated xenogeneic bone block for lateral alveolar crest augmentation for staged implant placement. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2017, 29, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Pistilli, R.; Felice, P.; Piatelli, M.; Nisii, A.; Barausse, C.; Esposito, M. Blocks of autogenous bone versus xenografts for the rehabilitation of atrophic jaws with dental implants: Preliminary data from a pilot randomised controlled trial. Eur. J. Oral Implant. 2014, 7, 153–171. [Google Scholar]
  24. Nevins, M.; Mellonig, J.T.; Clem, D.S., III; Reiser, G.M.; Buser, D.A. Implants in regenerated bone: Long-term survival. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 1998, 18. [Google Scholar]
  25. Khojasteh, A.; Motamedian, S.R.; Khojaste, M. Success rate of implants placed in autogenous bone blocks versus allogenic bone blocks: A systematic literature review. Ann. Maxillofac. Surg. 2016, 6, 78–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Pérez-González, F.; Molinero-Mourelle, P.; Sánchez-Labrador, L.; Sáez-Alcaide, L.; Limones, A.; Brinkmann, J.C.-B.; López-Quiles, J. Assessment of clinical outcomes and histomorphometric findings in alveolar ridge augmentation procedures with allogeneic bone block grafts: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Y Cir. Bucal. 2020, 25, e291–e298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Waasdorp, J.; Reynolds, M. Allogeneic bone onlay grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation: A systematic review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2010, 25. [Google Scholar]
  28. Araújo, P.P.T.; Oliveira, K.P.; Montenegro, S.C.L.; Carreiro, A.F.P.; Silva, J.S.P.; Germano, A.R. Block allograft for reconstruction of alveolar bone ridge in implantology: A systematic review: A systematic review. Implant. Dent. 2013, 22, 304–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.A.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Troeltzsch, M.; Troeltzsch, M.; Kauffmann, P.; Gruber, R.; Brockmeyer, P.; Moser, N.; Rau, A.; Schliephake, H. Clinical efficacy of grafting materials in alveolar ridge augmentation: A systematic review. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2016, 44, 1618–1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wells, G.A.; Shea, B.; O’Connell, D.A.; Peterson, J.; Welch, V.; Losos, M.; Tugwell, P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  32. Jadad, A.R.; Moore, R.A.; Carroll, D.; Jenkinson, C.; Reynolds, D.J.; Gavaghan, D.J.; McQuay, H.J. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control. Clin. Trials 1996, 17, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Acocella, A.; Bertolai, R.; Colafranceschi, M.; Sacco, R. Clinical, histological and histomorphometric evaluation of the healing of mandibular ramus bone block grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation before implant placement. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg. 2010, 38, 222–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Altiparmak, N.; Akdeniz, S.S.; Diker, N.; Bayram, B.; Uckan, S. Comparison of Success Rate of Dental Implants Placed in Autogenous Bone Graft Regenerated Areas and Pristine Bone. J. Craniofacial Surg. 2020, 31, 1572–1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Åstrand, P.; Nord, P.G.; Brånemark, P.-I. Titanium implants and onlay bone graft to the atrophic edentulous maxilla: A 3-year longitudinal study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1996, 25, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bartols, A.; Kasprzyk, S.; Walther, W.; Korsch, M. Lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with autogenous block grafts fixed at a distance versus resorbable Poly-D-L-Lactide foil fixed at a distance: A single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2018, 29, 843–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bell, R.; Blakey, G.H.; White, R.P.; Hillebrand, D.G.; Molina, A. Staged reconstruction of the severely atrophic mandible with autogenous bone graft and endosteal implants. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2002, 60, 1135–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bienz, S.P.; Payer, M.; Hjerppe, J.; Hüsler, J.; Jakse, N.; Schmidlin, P.R.; Hämmerle, C.H.; Jung, R.E.; Thoma, D.S. Primary bone augmentation leads to equally stable marginal tissue conditions comparing the use of xenograft blocks infused with BMP-2 and autogenous bone blocks: A 3D analysis after three years. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2021, 32, 1433–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bormann, K.-H.; Suarez-Cunqueiro, M.; von See, C.; Kokemüller, H.; Schumann, P.; Gellrich, N.-C. Sandwich osteotomy for vertical and transversal augmentation of the posterior mandible. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2010, 39, 554–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bormann, K.-H.; Suarez-Cunqueiro, M.M.; Von See, C.; Tavassol, F.; Dissmann, J.-P.; Ruecker, M.; Kokemueller, H.; Gellrich, N.-C. Forty Sandwich Osteotomies in Atrophic Mandibles: A Retrospective Study. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2011, 69, 1562–1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Boronat, A.; Carrillo, C.; Penarrocha, M.; Pennarocha, M. Dental implants placed simultaneously with bone grafts in horizontal defects: A clinical retrospective study with 37 patients. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2010, 25, 189–196. [Google Scholar]
  42. Boven, G.C.; Meijer, H.J.A.; Vissink, A.; Raghoebar, G.M. Reconstruction of the extremely atrophied mandible with iliac crest onlay grafts followed by two endosteal implants: A retrospective study with long-term follow-up. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2014, 43, 626–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Buser, D.; Ingimarsson, S.; Dula, K.; Lussi, A.; Hirt, H.P.; Belser, U.C. Long-term stability of osseointegrated implants in augmented bone: A 5-year prospective study in partially edentulous patients. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2002, 22, 108–117. [Google Scholar]
  44. Chappuis, V.; Cavusoglu, Y.; Buser, D.; von Arx, T. Lateral Ridge Augmentation Using Autogenous Block Grafts and Guided Bone Regeneration: A 10-Year Prospective Case Series Study. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2016, 19, 85–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Chiapasco, M.; Abati, S.; Romeo, E.; Vogel, G. Clinical outcome of autogenous bone blocks or guided bone regeneration with e-PTFE membranes for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 1999, 10, 278–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Chiapasco, M.; Casentini, P.; Zaniboni, M.; Corsi, E. Evaluation of peri-implant graft resorption around S traumann B one L evel© implants placed in areas reconstructed with autogenous vertical onlay bone grafts. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2012, 23, 1012–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Chiapasco, M.; Tommasato, G.; Palombo, D.; Del Fabbro, M. A retrospective 10-year mean follow-up of implants placed in ridges grafted using autogenous mandibular blocks covered with bovine bone mineral and collagen membrane. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2020, 31, 328–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Cordaro, L.; Amadè, D.S.; Cordaro, M. Clinical results of alveolar ridge augmentation with mandibular block bone grafts in partially edentulous patients prior to implant placement. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2002, 13, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Cordaro, L.; Torsello, F.; Morcavallo, S.; Di Torresanto, V.M. Effect of bovine bone and collagen membranes on healing of mandibular bone blocks: A prospective randomized controlled study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2011, 22, 1145–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Cordaro, L.; Torsello, F.; Ribeiro, C.A.; Liberatore, M.; di Torresanto, V.M. Inlay–onlay grafting for three-dimensional reconstruction of the posterior atrophic maxilla with mandibular bone. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2010, 39, 350–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. De Santis, D.; Trevisiol, L.; D’Agostino, A.; Cucchi, A.; De Gemmis, A.; Nocini, P.F. Guided bone regeneration with autogenous block grafts applied to Le Fort I osteotomy for treatment of severely resorbed maxillae: A 4- to 6-year prospective study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2011, 23, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. De Stavola, L.; Tunkel, J. Results of vertical bone augmentation with autogenous bone block grafts and the tunnel technique: A clinical prospective study of 10 consecutively treated patients. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2013, 33, 651–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Dds, A.M.D.; Kawakami, P.Y.; Bechara, K.; Rodrigues, J.; Cassoni, A.; Figueiredo, L.C.; Piattelli, A.; Shibli, J.A. Stability of Implants Placed in Augmented Posterior Mandible after Alveolar Osteotomy Using Resorbable Nonceramic Hydroxyapatite or Intraoral Autogenous Bone: 12-Month Follow-Up. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2012, 16, 330–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Elo, J.A.; Herford, A.S.; Boyne, P.J. Implant Success in Distracted Bone Versus Autogenous Bone-Grafted Sites. J. Oral Implant. 2009, 35, 181–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Esposito, M.; Barausse, C.; Pistilli, R.; Sammartino, G.; Grandi, G.; Felice, P. Short implants versus bone augmentation for placing longer implants in atrophic maxillae: One-year post-loading results of a pilot randomised controlled trial. Eur. J. Oral Implant. 2015, 8, 257–268. [Google Scholar]
  56. Felice, P.; Marchetti, C.; Iezzi, G.; Piattelli, A.; Worthington, H.; Pellegrino, G.; Esposito, M. Vertical ridge augmentation of the atrophic posterior mandible with interpositional bloc grafts: Bone from the iliac crest vs. bovine anorganic bone. Clinical and histological results up to one year after loading from a randomized-controlled clinical trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2009, 20, 1386–1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Felice, P.; Pistilli, R.; Lizio, G.; Pellegrino, G.; Nisii, A.; Marchetti, C. Inlay versus Onlay Iliac Bone Grafting in Atrophic Posterior Mandible: A Prospective Controlled Clinical Trial for the Comparison of Two Techniques. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2009, 11, e69–e82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Gultekin, B.A.; Cansiz, E.; Borahan, M.O. Clinical and 3-Dimensional Radiographic Evaluation of Autogenous Iliac Block Bone Grafting and Guided Bone Regeneration in Patients With Atrophic Maxilla. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017, 75, 709–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Guo, Z.; Chen, L.; Ning, Y.; Ding, X.; Gao, Y.; Zhou, L.; Xu, S.; Zhang, Z. Split-crest technique with inlay bone block grafts for narrow posterior mandibles: A retrospective clinical study with a 3-year follow-up. Am. J. Transl. Res. 2020, 12, 4628–4638. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hartlev, J.; Nørholt, S.E.; Spin-Neto, R.; Kraft, D.; Schou, S.; Isidor, F. Histology of augmented autogenous bone covered by a platelet-rich fibrin membrane or deproteinized bovine bone mineral and a collagen membrane: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2020, 31, 694–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Işık, G.; Günbay, T.; Uyanıkgil, Y.I.; Kısaoglu, H.; Yüce, M.Ö. Comparison of Autogenous Block Bone Graft and Screw Tent-Pole Techniques for Vertical Bone Augmentation in the Posterior Mandible: A Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Study. J. Adv. Oral Res. 2021, 12, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jensen, A.T.; Jensen, S.S.; Worsaae, N. Complications related to bone augmentation procedures of localized defects in the alveolar ridge. A retrospective clinical study. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2016, 20, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Jemt, T.; Lekholm, U. Measurements of buccal tissue volumes at single-implant restorations after local bone grafting in maxillas: A 3-year clinical prospective study case series. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2003, 5, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Kablan, F. Superioralization of the inferior alveolar nerve and roofing for extreme atrophic posterior mandibular ridges with dental implants. Ann. Maxillofac. Surg. 2020, 10, 142–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Kawakami, P.Y.; Dottore, A.M.; Bechara, K.; Feres, M.; Shibli, J.A. Alveolar osteotomy associated with resorbable non-ceramic hydroxylapatite or intra-oral autogenous bone for height augmentation in posterior mandibular sites: A split-mouth prospective study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2012, 24, 1060–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Keller, E.; E Tolman, D.; Eckert, S. Surgical-prosthodontic reconstruction of advanced maxillary bone compromise with autogenous onlay block bone grafts and osseointegrated endosseous implants: A 12-year study of 32 consecutive patients. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 1999, 14, 197–209. [Google Scholar]
  67. Kim, J.-W.; Cho, M.-H.; Kim, S.-J.; Kim, M.-R. Alveolar distraction osteogenesis versus autogenous onlay bone graft for vertical augmentation of severely atrophied alveolar ridges after 12 years of long-term follow-up. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2013, 116, 540–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Levin, L.; Nitzan, D.; Schwartz-Arad, D. Success of Dental Implants Placed in Intraoral Block Bone Grafts. J. Periodontol. 2007, 78, 18–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. McCarthy, C.; Patel, R.R.; Wragg, P.F.; Brook, I.M. Dental implants and onlay bone grafts in the anterior maxilla: Analysis of clinical outcome. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2003, 18, 238–241. [Google Scholar]
  70. McGrath, C.; Schepers, S.; Blijdorp, P.; Hoppenreijs, T.; Erbe, M. Simultaneous placement of endosteal implants and mandibular onlay grafting for treatment of the atrophic mandible: A preliminary report. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1996, 25, 184–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Meijndert, L.; Raghoebar, G.; Schüpbach, P.; Meijer, H.; Vissink, A. Bone quality at the implant site after reconstruction of a local defect of the maxillary anterior ridge with chin bone or deproteinised cancellous bovine bone. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2005, 34, 877–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Meijndert, L.; Raghoebar, G.M.; Meijer, H.J.A.; Vissink, A. Clinical and radiographic characteristics of single-tooth replacements preceded by local ridge augmentation: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2008, 19, 1295–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mendoza-Azpur, G.; De La Fuente, A.; Chavez, E.; Valdivia, E.; Khouly, I. Horizontal ridge augmentation with guided bone regeneration using particulate xenogenic bone substitutes with or without autogenous block grafts: A randomized controlled trial. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2019, 21, 521–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Mertens, C.; Decker, C.; Seeberger, R.; Hoffmann, J.; Sander, A.; Freier, K. Early bone resorption after vertical bone augmentation–a comparison of calvarial and iliac grafts. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2013, 24, 820–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Molly, L.; Quirynen, M.; Michiels, K.; Steenberghe, D.V. Comparison between jaw bone augmentation by means of a stiff occlusive titanium membrane or an autogenous hip graft: A retrospective clinical assessment. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2006, 17, 481–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Nielsen, H.B.; Starch-Jensen, T. Lateral ridge augmentation in the posterior part of the mandible with an autogenous bone block graft harvested from the ascending mandibular ramus. A 10-year retrospective study. J. Stomatol. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020, 122, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Nyström, E.; Ahlqvist, J.; Gunne, J.; Kahnberg, K.-E. 10-year follow-up of onlay bone grafts and implants in severely resorbed maxillae. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2004, 33, 258–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Nyström, E.; Nilson, H.; Gunne, J.; Lundgren, S. A 9–14 year follow-up of onlay bone grafting in the atrophic maxilla. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2009, 38, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pelo, S.; Boniello, R.; Moro, A.; Gasparini, G.; Amoroso, P. Augmentation of the atrophic edentulous mandible by a bilateral two-step osteotomy with autogenous bone graft to place osseointegrated dental implants. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2010, 39, 227–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Peñarrocha-Diago, M.; Aloy-Prósper, A.; Peñarrocha-Oltra, D.; Calvo Guirado, J.L.; Peñarrocha-Diago, M. Localized lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with block bone grafts: Simultaneous versus delayed implant placement: A clinical and radiographic retrospective study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2013, 28, 846–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Peñarrocha-Oltra, D.; Aloy-Prósper, A.; Cervera-Ballester, J.; Peñarrocha-Diago, M.; Canullo, L.; Peñarrocha-Diago, M. Implant treatment in atrophic posterior mandibles: Vertical regeneration with block bone grafts versus implants with 5.5-mm intrabony length. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2014, 29, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Raghoebar, G.M.; Batenburg, R.H.; Vissink, A.; Reintsema, H. Augmentation of localized defects of the anterior maxillary ridge with autogenous bone before insertion of implants. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1996, 54, 1180–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Raghoebar, G.M.; Schoen, P.; Meijer, H.J.A.; Stellingsma, K.; Vissink, A. Early loading of endosseous implants in the augmented maxilla: A 1-year prospective study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2003, 14, 697–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sbordone, C.; Toti, P.; Martuscelli, R.; Guidetti, F.; Sbordone, L.; Ramaglia, L. A 5-Year Implant Follow-Up in Maxillary and Mandibular Horizontal Osseous Onlay Grafts and Native Bone. J. Oral Implant. 2015, 41, 570–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Sbordone, L.; Toti, P.; Fabris, G.B.M.; Piombino, P.; Guidetti, F. Volume changes of autogenous bone grafts after alveolar ridge augmentation of atrophic maxillae and mandibles. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2009, 38, 1059–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Schwartz-Arad, D.; Ofec, R.; Eliyahu, G.; Ruban, A.; Sterer, N. Long term follow-up of dental implants placed in autogenous onlay bone graft. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2016, 18, 449–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Sethi, A.; Kaus, T. Ridge augmentation using mandibular block bone grafts: Preliminary results of an ongoing prospective study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2001, 16, 378–388. [Google Scholar]
  88. Sjöström, M.; Sennerby, L.; Nilson, H.; Lundgren, S. Reconstruction of the Atrophic Edentulous Maxilla with Free Iliac Crest Grafts and Implants: A 3-Year Report of a Prospective Clinical Study. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2007, 9, 46–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Smolka, W.; Bosshardt, D.D.; Mericske-Stern, R.; Iizuka, T. Reconstruction of the severely atrophic mandible using calvarial split bone grafts for implant-supported oral rehabilitation. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endodontol. 2006, 101, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Stellingsma, K.; Raghoebar, G.M.; Visser, A.; Vissink, A.; Meijer, H.J. The extremely resorbed mandible, 10-year results of a randomized controlled trial on 3 treatment strategies. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2014, 25, 926–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Stricker, A.; Jacobs, R.; Maes, F.; Fluegge, T.; Vach, K.; Fleiner, J. Resorption of retromolar bone grafts after alveolar ridge augmentation—volumetric changes after 12 months assessed by CBCT analysis. Int. J. Implant. Dent. 2021, 7, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Thor, A.; Wannfors, K.; Sennerby, L.; Rasmusson, L. Reconstruction of the severely resorbed maxilla with autogenous bone, platelet-rich plasma, and implants: 1-year results of a controlled prospective 5-year study. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2005, 7, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Tosun, E.; Avağ, C.; Başlarlı, Ö.; Kiriş, S.; Öztürk, A.; Akkocaoğlu, M. Comparison between peri-implant bone level changes of implants placed during and 3 months after iliac bone grafting. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2018, 125, e12–e16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. van der Mark, E.L.; Bierenbroodspot, F.; Baas, E.M.; de Lange, J. Reconstruction of an atrophic maxilla: Comparison of two methods. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2011, 49, 198–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Van Der Meij, E.; Blankestijn, J.; Berns, R.; Bun, R.; Jovanovic, A.; Onland, J.; Schoen, J. The combined use of two endosteal implants and iliac crest onlay grafts in the severely atrophic mandible by a modified surgical approach. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2005, 34, 152–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Van Steenberghe, D.; Naert, I.; Bossuyt, M.; De Mars, G.; Calberson, L.; Ghyselen, J.; Brånemark, P.-I. The rehabilitation of the severely resorbed maxilla by simultaneous placement of autogenous bone grafts and implants: A 10-year evaluation. Clin. Oral Investig. 1997, 1, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Verhoeven, J.; Cune, M.; Terlou, M.; Zoon, M.; De Putter, C. The combined use of endosteal implants and iliac crest onlay grafts in the severely atrophic mandible: A longitudinal study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1997, 26, 351–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Vermeeren, J.I.; Wismeijer, D.; van Waas, M.A. One-step reconstruction of the severely resorbed mandible with onlay bone grafts and endosteal implants: A 5-year follow-up. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1996, 25, 112–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Vinci, R.; Teté, G.; Lucchetti, F.R.; Cappare’, P.; Gherlone, E. Implant survival rate in calvarial bone grafts: A retrospective clinical study with 10 year follow-up. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2019, 21, 662–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Widmark, G.; Andersson, B.; E Carlsson, G.; Lindvall, A.M.; Ivanoff, C.J. Rehabilitation of patients with severely resorbed maxillae by means of implants with or without bone grafts: A 3- to 5-year follow-up clinical report. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2001, 16. [Google Scholar]
  101. Wiltfang, J.; Jätschmann, N.; Hedderich, J.; Neukam, F.W.; Schlegel, K.A.; Gierloff, M. Effect of deproteinized bovine bone matrix coverage on the resorption of iliac cortico-spongeous bone grafts–a prospective study of two cohorts. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2014, 25, e127–e132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Wiltfang, J.; Schultze-Mosgau, S.; Nkenke, E.; Thorwarth, M.; Neukam, F.; Schlegel, K. Onlay augmentation versus sinuslift procedure in the treatment of the severely resorbed maxilla: A 5-year comparative longitudinal study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2005, 34, 885–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Acocella, A.; Bertolai, R.; Ellis, E., III; Nissan, J.; Sacco, R. Maxillary alveolar ridge reconstruction with monocortical fresh-frozen bone blocks: A clinical, histological and histomorphometric study. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg. 2012, 40, 525–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Ahmadi, R.S.; Sayar, F.; Rakhshan, V.; Iranpour, B.; Jahanbani, J.; Toumaj, A.; Akhoondi, N. Clinical and Histomorphometric Assessment of Lateral Alveolar Ridge Augmentation Using a Corticocancellous Freeze-Dried Allograft Bone Block. J. Oral Implant. 2017, 43, 202–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Amorfini, L.; Migliorati, M.; Signori, A.; Silvestrini-Biavati, A.; Benedicenti, S. Block Allograft Technique versus Standard Guided Bone Regeneration: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2013, 16, 655–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Aslan, E.; Gultekin, A.; Karabuda, C.; Mortellaro, C.; Olgac, V.; Mijiritsky, E. Clinical, Histological, and Histomorphometric Evaluation of Demineralized Freeze-Dried Cortical Block Allografts for Alveolar Ridge Augmentation. J. Craniofacial Surg. 2016, 27, 1181–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Carinci, F.; Brunelli, G.; Zollino, I.; Franco, M.; Viscioni, A.; Rigo, L.; Guidi, R.; Strohmenger, L. Mandibles Grafted With Fresh-Frozen Bone: An Evaluation of Implant Outcome. Implant. Dent. 2009, 18, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Carinci, F.; Brunelli, G.; Franco, M.; Viscioni, A.; Rigo, L.; Guidi, R.; Strohmenger, L. A Retrospective Study on 287 Implants Installed in Resorbed Maxillae Grafted with Fresh Frozen Allogenous Bone. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2008, 12, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Chaushu, L.; Chaushu, G.; Kolerman, R.; Vered, M.; Naishlos, S.; Nissan, J. Anterior atrophic mandible restoration using cancellous bone block allograft. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2019, 21, 903–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Contar, C.M.; Sarot, J.R.; Bordini, J., Jr.; Galvão, G.H.; Nicolau, G.V.; Machado, M.A.N. Maxillary ridge augmentation with fresh-frozen bone allografts. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2009, 67, 1280–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Deluiz, D.; Oliveira, L.; Fletcher, P.; Pires, F.R.; Nunes, M.A.; Tinoco, E.M. Fresh-Frozen Bone Allografts in Maxillary Alveolar Augmentation: Analysis of Complications, Adverse Outcomes, and Implant Survival. J. Periodontol. 2016, 87, 1261–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Dias, R.R.; Sehn, F.P.; Santos, T.D.S.; Silva, E.R.; Chaushu, G.; Xavier, S.P. Corticocancellous fresh-frozen allograft bone blocks for augmenting atrophied posterior mandibles in humans. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2014, 27, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Franco, M.; Viscioni, A.; Rigo, L.; Guidi, R.; Zollino, I.; Avantaggiato, A.; Carinci, F. Clinical outcome of narrow diameter implants inserted into allografts. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2009, 17, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Keith, J.D., Jr.; Petrungaro, P.; Leonetti, J.A.; Elwell, C.W., Jr.; Zeren, K.J.; Caputo, C.; Nikitakis, N.G.; Schöpf, C.; Warner, M.M. Clinical and Histologic Evaluation of a Mineralized Block Allograft: Results from the Developmental Period (2001–2004). Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2006, 26, 320–327. [Google Scholar]
  115. Maiorana, C.; Poli, P.P.; Borgonovo, A.E.; Rancitelli, D.; Frigo, A.C.; Pieroni, S.; Santoro, F. Long-Term Retrospective Evaluation of Dental Implants Placed in Resorbed Jaws Reconstructed With Appositional Fresh-Frozen Bone Allografts. Implant. Dent. 2016, 25, 400–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Chaushu, G.; Mardinger, O.; Calderon, S.; Moses, O.; Nissan, J. The Use of Cancellous Block Allograft for Sinus Floor Augmentation With Simultaneous Implant Placement in the Posterior Atrophic Maxilla. J. Periodontol. 2009, 80, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Nissan, J.; Ghelfan, O.; Mardinger, O.; Calderon, S.; Chaushu, G. Efficacy of Cancellous Block Allograft Augmentation Prior to Implant Placement in the Posterior Atrophic Mandible. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2009, 13, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Nissan, J.; Gross, O.; Mardinger, O.; Ghelfan, O.; Sacco, R.; Chaushu, G. Post-Traumatic Implant-Supported Restoration of the Anterior Maxillary Teeth Using Cancellous Bone Block Allografts. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2011, 69, e513–e518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Nissan, J.; Mardinger, O.; Calderon, S.; Romanos, G.E.; Chaushu, G. Cancellous Bone Block Allografts for the Augmentation of the Anterior Atrophic Maxilla. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2011, 13, 104–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Nissan, J.; Mardinger, O.; Strauss, M.; Peleg, M.; Sacco, R.; Chaushu, G. Implant-supported restoration of congenitally missing teeth using cancellous bone block-allografts. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endodontol. 2011, 111, 286–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Nord, T.; Yüksel, O.; Grimm, W.-D.; Giesenhagen, B. One-stage Vertical Ridge Augmentation and Dental Implantation with Allograft Bonerings: Results 1 Year After Surgery. J. Oral Implant. 2019, 45, 457–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Novell, J.; Novell-Costa, F.; Ivorra, C.; Fariñas, O.; Munilla, A.; Martinez, C. Five-Year Results of Implants Inserted Into Freeze-Dried Block Allografts. Implant. Dent. 2012, 21, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Procopio, O.; Trojan, D.; Frigo, A.C.; Paolin, A. Use of homologous bone for alveolar crest reconstruction in 483 patients with 5 years’ outcomes post implantation. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2019, 23, 353–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Silva, E.R.; Ferraz, E.P.; Neto, E.C.M.; Chaushu, G.; Chaushu, L.; Xavier, S.P. Volumetric Stability of Fresh Frozen Bone Blocks in Atrophic Posterior Mandible Augmentation. J. Oral Implant. 2017, 43, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Tresguerres, F.; Cortes, A.R.; Hernandez Vallejo, G.; Cabrejos-Azama, J.; Tamimi, F.; Torres, J. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of allogeneic block grafts for maxillary lateral ridge augmentation: A randomized clinical trial. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2019, 21, 1087–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Al-Abedalla, K.; Torres, J.; Cortes, A.; Wu, X.; Nader, S.A.; Daniel, N.; Tamimi, F. Bone Augmented With Allograft Onlays for Implant Placement Could Be Comparable With Native Bone. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2015, 73, 2108–2122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Chiapasco, M.; Di Martino, G.; Anello, T.; Zaniboni, M.; Romeo, E. Fresh Frozen versus Autogenous Iliac Bone for the Rehabilitation of the Extremely Atrophic Maxilla with Onlay Grafts and Endosseous Implants: Preliminary Results of a Prospective Comparative Study. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2013, 17, e251–e266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Dellavia, C.; Giammattei, M.; Carmagnola, D.; Musto, F.; Canciani, E.; Chiapasco, M. Iliac crest fresh-frozen allografts versus autografts in oral pre-prosthetic bone reconstructive surgery: Histologic and histomorphometric study. Implant. Dent. 2016, 25, 731–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Kloss, F.R.; Offermanns, V.; Kloss-Brandstätter, A. Comparison of allogeneic and autogenous bone grafts for augmentation of alveolar ridge defects—A 12-month retrospective radiographic evaluation. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2018, 29, 1163–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Park, Y.-H.; Choi, S.-H.; Cho, K.S.; Lee, J.-S.; Msd, Y.-H.P.D.; Dds, S.-H.C. Dimensional alterations following vertical ridge augmentation using collagen membrane and three types of bone grafting materials: A retrospective observational study. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2017, 19, 742–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. De Stavola, L.; Tunkel, J. A New Approach to Maintenance of Regenerated Autogenous Bone Volume: Delayed Relining with Xenograft and Resorbable Membrane. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2013, 28, 1062–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Levin, B.P.; Rubinstein, S.; Rose, L.F. Advanced Esthetic Management of Dental Implants: Surgical and Restorative Considerations to Improve Outcomes. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2015, 27, 224–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Chrcanovic, B.R.; Albrektsson, T.; Wennerberg, A. Reasons for failures of oral implants. J. Oral Rehabil. 2014, 41, 443–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Draenert, F.G.; Kämmerer, P.W.; Berthold, M.; Neff, A. Complications with allogeneic, cancellous bone blocks in vertical alveolar ridge augmentation: Prospective clinical case study and review of the literature. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2016, 122, e31–e43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Chaushu, G.; Mardinger, O.; Peleg, M.; Ghelfan, O.; Nissan, J. Analysis of Complications Following Augmentation With Cancellous Block Allografts. J. Periodontol. 2010, 81, 1759–1764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Hof, M.; Tepper, G.; Semo, B.; Arnhart, C.; Watzek, G.; Pommer, B. Patients’ perspectives on dental implant and bone graft surgery: Questionnaire-based interview survey. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2012, 25, 42–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Pommer, B.; Tepper, G.; Gahleitner, A.; Zechner, W.; Watzek, G. New safety margins for chin bone harvesting based on the course of the mandibular incisive canal in CT. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2008, 19, 1312–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Schaaf, H.; Lendeckel, S.; Howaldt, H.-P.; Streckbein, P. Donor site morbidity after bone harvesting from the anterior iliac crest. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endodontology 2010, 109, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Weibull, L.; Widmark, G.; Ivanoff, C.J.; Borg, E.; Rasmusson, L. Morbidity after chin bone harvesting–a retrospective long-term follow-up study. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2009, 11, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Aghazadeh, A.; Persson, G.R.; Renvert, S. A single-centre randomized controlled clinical trial on the adjunct treatment of intra-bony defects with autogenous bone or a xenograft: Results after 12 months. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2012, 39, 666–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Arenaz-Bua, J.; Luaces-Rey, R.; Sironvalle-Soliva, S.; Patino-Seijas, B.; Garcia-Rozado, A.; Martin-Sastre, R.; Ferreras-Granados, J.; Lorenzo-Franco, F.; Vazquez-Mahia, I.; Lopez-Cedrun, J. A comparative study of platelet-rich plasma, hydroxyapatite, demineralized bone matrix and autologous bone to promote bone regeneration after mandibular impacted third molar extraction. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal. 2010, 15, e483–e489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Barboza, E.P.; Stutz, B.; Ferreira, V.F.; Carvalho, W. Guided Bone Regeneration Using Nonexpanded Polytetrafluoroethylene Membranes in Preparation for Dental Implant Placements—A Report of 420 Cases. Implant. Dent. 2010, 19, 2–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Beitlitum, I.; Sebaoun, A.; Nemcovsky, C.E.; Slutzkey, S. Lateral bone augmentation in narrow posterior mandibles, description of a novel approach, and analysis of results. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2018, 20, 96–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Bianconi, S.; Bozzoli, P.; Del Fabbro, M. Treatment of postextraction sites with allograft-stabilized dental implants: A clinical case series: A clinical case series. Implant. Dent. 2017, 26, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Charde, P.; Thakare, K.S.; Bhongade, M.L.; Markovic, A.; Deshpande, A.M. Reconstruction of Interimplant Papilla by Demineralized Freeze-dried Bone Allograft Block Fixed by Titanium Screw in Maxillary Esthetic Zone. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2020, 21, 1205–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Naishlos, S.; Zenziper, E.; Zelikman, H.; Nissan, J.; Mizrahi, S.; Chaushu, G.; Matalon, S.; Chaushu, L. Esthetic Assessment Succeeding Anterior Atrophic Maxilla Augmentation with Cancellous Bone-Block Allograft and Late Restoration Loading. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 4635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Corinaldesi, G.; Pieri, F.; Sapigni, L.; Marchetti, C. Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants placed at the time of or after alveolar ridge augmentation with an autogenous mandibular bone graft and titanium mesh: A 3- to 8-year retrospective study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2010, 24, 1119–1128. [Google Scholar]
  148. El Chaar, E.; Urtula, A.B.; Georgantza, A.; Cruz, S.; Fallah-Abed, P.; Castaño, A.; Abitbol, T.; Warner, M.M. Treatment of atrophic ridges with titanium mesh: A retrospective study using 100% mineralized allograft and comparing dental stone versus 3D-printed models. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2019, 39, 491–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Ge, J.; Yang, C.; Zheng, J.; Hu, Y. Autogenous bone grafting for treatment of osseous defect after impacted mandibular third molar extraction: A randomized controlled trial: Ge et al. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2017, 19, 572–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Güven, O.; Tekin, U.S. Healing of bone defects by an osteopromotion technique using solvent-dehydrated cortical bone plate: A clinical and radiological study: A clinical and radiological study. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2006, 17, 1105–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Huang, H.-Y.; Ogata, Y.; Hanley, J.; Finkelman, M.; Hur, Y. Crestal bone resorption in augmented bone using mineralized freeze-dried bone allograft or pristine bone during submerged implant healing: A prospective study in humans. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2016, 27, e25–e30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Ilankovan, V.; Stronczek, M.; Telfer, M.; Peterson, L.; Stassen, L.; Ward-Booth, P. A prospective study of trephined bone grafts of the tibial shaft and iliac crest. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1998, 36, 434–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Jacotti, M.; Wang, H.-L.; Fu, J.-H.; Zamboni, G.; Bernardello, F. Ridge augmentation with mineralized block allografts: Clinical and histological evaluation of 8 cases treated with the 3-dimensional block technique. Implant. Dent. 2012, 21, 444–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Kang, Y.-H.; Kim, H.-M.; Byun, J.-H.; Kim, U.-K.; Sung, I.-Y.; Cho, Y.-C.; Park, B.-W. Stability of simultaneously placed dental implants with autologous bone grafts harvested from the iliac crest or intraoral jaw bone. BMC Oral Heal. 2015, 15, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Khoury, F.; Hanser, T. Mandibular Bone Block Harvesting from the Retromolar Region: A 10-Year Prospective Clinical Study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2015, 30, 688–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Krasny, K.; Krasny, M.; Wojtowicz, A.; Kamiński, A. Allogeneic Bone Block Volume Preservation in Ridge Augmentation for Implants. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2018, 38, 355–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Lekholm, U.; Wannfors, K.; Isaksson, S.; Adielsson, B. Oral implants in combination with bone grafts: A 3-year retrospective multicenter study using the Brånemark implant system. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1999, 28, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Lima, R.G.; Lima, T.G.; Francischone, C.E.; Turssi, C.; Assis, N.; Sotto-Maior, B. Bone Volume Dynamics and Implant Placement Torque in Horizontal Bone Defects Reconstructed with Autologous or Xenogeneic Block Bone: A Randomized, Controlled, Split-Mouth, Prospective Clinical Trial. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2018, 33, 888–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Margonar, R.; Santos, P.; Queiroz, T.; Marcantonio, E. Rehabilitation of Atrophic Maxilla Using the Combination of Autogenous and Allogeneic Bone Grafts Followed by Protocol-Type Prosthesis. J. Craniofacial Surg. 2010, 21, 1894–1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Mau, J.L.; Grodin, E.; Lin, J.-J.; Chen, M.C.-J.; Ho, C.-H.; Cochran, D.; Gordin, E. A comparative, randomized, prospective, two-center clinical study to evaluate the clinical and esthetic outcomes of two different bone grafting techniques in early implant placement. J. Periodontol. 2018, 90, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Merli, M.; Mariotti, G.; Pagliaro, U.; Mazzoni, A.; Moscatelli, M.; Nieri, M. The Fence Technique: 100% Autogenous Bone Graft vs 50% Deproteinized Bovine Bone Matrix and 50% Autogenous Bone Graft. A Histologic Randomized Controlled Trial. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2020, 40, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Morad, G.; Khojasteh, A. Cortical tenting technique versus onlay layered technique for vertical augmentation of atrophic posterior mandibles: A split-mouth pilot study: A split-mouth pilot study. Implant. Dent. 2013, 22, 566–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Mordenfeld, A.; Aludden, H.; Starch-Jensen, T. Lateral ridge augmentation with two different ratios of deproteinized bovine bone and autogenous bone: A 2-year follow-up of a randomized and controlled trial. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2017, 19, 884–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Ozkan, Y.; Ozcan, M.; Varol, A.; Akoglu, B.; Ucankale, M.; Basa, S. Resonance frequency analysis assessment of implant stability in labial onlay grafted posterior mandibles: A pilot clinical study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2007, 22, 235–242. [Google Scholar]
  165. Pimentel, A.C.; Napimoga, M.H.; Manzi, M.R.; Sendyk, W.R. Reconstruction of the edentulous mandible with fresh frozen bone grafts and implants: A 4-year report of a prospective clinical study. Cell Tissue Bank. 2012, 15, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Putters, T.; Wortmann, D.; Schortinghuis, J.; van Minnen, B.; Boven, G.; Vissink, A.; Raghoebar, G. Morbidity of anterior iliac crest and calvarial bone donor graft sites: A 1-year randomized controlled trial. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2018, 47, 1474–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Quereshy, F.A.; Dhaliwal, H.S.; El, S.A.; Horan, M.P.; Dhaliwal, S.S. Resorbable Screw Fixation for Cortical Onlay Bone Grafting: A Pilot Study With Preliminary Results. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2010, 68, 2497–2502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Sethi, A.; Kaus, T.; Cawood, J.; Plaha, H.; Boscoe, M.; Sochor, P. Onlay bone grafts from iliac crest: A retrospective analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020, 49, 264–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Simion, M.; Jovanovic, S.A.; Tinti, C.; Benfenati, S.P. Long-term evaluation of osseointegrated implants inserted at the time or after vertical ridge augmentation. A retrospective study on 123 implants with 1-5 year follow-up: A retrospective study on 123 implants with 1-5 year follow-up. Clin. Oral. Implant. Res. 2001, 12, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Simon, B.I.; Von Hagen, S.; Deasy, M.J.; Faldu, M.; Resnansky, D. Changes in Alveolar Bone Height and Width Following Ridge Augmentation Using Bone Graft and Membranes. J. Periodontol. 2000, 71, 1774–1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Soehardi, A.; Meijer, G.; Strooband, V.; De Koning, M.; Stoelinga, P. The potential of the horizontal ramus of the mandible as a donor site for block and particular grafts in pre-implant surgery. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2009, 38, 1173–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Solakoglu, Ö.; Steinbach, B.; Götz, W.; Heydecke, G.; Pantel, K.; Schwarzenbach, H. Characterization of circulating DNA in plasma of patients after allogeneic bone grafting. Clin. Oral Investig. 2019, 23, 4243–4253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Stellingsma, K.; Bouma, J.; Stegenga, B.; Meijer, H.J.A.; Raghoebar, G.M. Satisfaction and psychosocial aspects of patients with an extremely resorbed mandible treated with implant-retained overdentures. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2003, 14, 166–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Tresguerres, F.G.F.; Tresguerres, I.F.; Iglesias, O.; Leco, I.; Tamimi, F.; Torres, J. The role of cortical perforations in allogeneic block grafting for lateral augmentation in maxilla: A randomized clinical trial. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2021, 23, 530–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Zou, D.; Huang, W.; Wang, F.; Wang, S.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, C.; Kaigler, D.; Wu, Y. Autologous ilium grafts: Long-term results on immediate or staged functional rehabilitation of mandibular segmental defects using dental implants after tumor resection: Immediate or staged functional rehabilitation of mandibular segmental defects. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2015, 17, 779–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Demonstration of a violin plot and the depicted data. Three lines within the plot show the 1st and 3rd quartile and the median of the dataset, whereas the width of the violin body indicates the density of data along the x-axis. The edges of the violins represent the minimum and maximum values of the dataset.
Figure 1. Demonstration of a violin plot and the depicted data. Three lines within the plot show the 1st and 3rd quartile and the median of the dataset, whereas the width of the violin body indicates the density of data along the x-axis. The edges of the violins represent the minimum and maximum values of the dataset.
Medicina 57 01388 g001
Figure 2. PRISMA flowchart diagram of the study identification and selection process.
Figure 2. PRISMA flowchart diagram of the study identification and selection process.
Medicina 57 01388 g002
Figure 3. Implant survival rate of autogenous and allogeneic bone blocks calculated from mean values of study groups illustrated as violin plots. Dots within the violin body demonstrate the 1st and 3rd quartiles, whereas the dashed line indicates the median. Blue dashed lines show means of AUBB; red dashed lines show those of ALBB. Black bars represent comparisons via Mann–Whitney U test; grey bars label the comparison of the overall ISR with the sub-entities via the uncorrected Dunn’s test (p < 0.05 */0.005 **/0.0005 ***); AUG: autogenous bone graft; RB: resorption barrier; FUP: follow-up; ALG: allogeneic bone graft.
Figure 3. Implant survival rate of autogenous and allogeneic bone blocks calculated from mean values of study groups illustrated as violin plots. Dots within the violin body demonstrate the 1st and 3rd quartiles, whereas the dashed line indicates the median. Blue dashed lines show means of AUBB; red dashed lines show those of ALBB. Black bars represent comparisons via Mann–Whitney U test; grey bars label the comparison of the overall ISR with the sub-entities via the uncorrected Dunn’s test (p < 0.05 */0.005 **/0.0005 ***); AUG: autogenous bone graft; RB: resorption barrier; FUP: follow-up; ALG: allogeneic bone graft.
Medicina 57 01388 g003
Table 1. Survival rates of implants placed in studies conducted with autogenous bone grafts. SD, study design; Co/Ca, cortico-cancellous; in/on, inlay/onlay blocks; RB, resorption barrier; DT, defect type; DS, dentition status; GL, grafting location; n(P), count of patients; n(G), count of grafts; n(I), count of implants; TtI, time to implantation; F-Up, follow-up; ISR (%), implant survival rate (%); RCT, randomized controlled trial; PS, prospective study; RS, retrospective study; RA, ramus; CH, chin; IC, iliac crest; CV, calvaria; RCM, resorbable collagen membrane; DBBM, demineralized bovine bone mineral; HA, hydroxyapatite; PRGF, plasma rich in growth factors; H, horizontal; V, vertical; PE, partially edentulous; TE, totally edentulous; Mx, maxilla; Mn, mandible; GT, graft type; FFBA, fresh-frozen bone allograft; FDBA, freeze-dried BA; DFDBA, demineralized FDBA; SDBA, solvent-dehydrated BA. PBA, processed bone allograft.
Table 1. Survival rates of implants placed in studies conducted with autogenous bone grafts. SD, study design; Co/Ca, cortico-cancellous; in/on, inlay/onlay blocks; RB, resorption barrier; DT, defect type; DS, dentition status; GL, grafting location; n(P), count of patients; n(G), count of grafts; n(I), count of implants; TtI, time to implantation; F-Up, follow-up; ISR (%), implant survival rate (%); RCT, randomized controlled trial; PS, prospective study; RS, retrospective study; RA, ramus; CH, chin; IC, iliac crest; CV, calvaria; RCM, resorbable collagen membrane; DBBM, demineralized bovine bone mineral; HA, hydroxyapatite; PRGF, plasma rich in growth factors; H, horizontal; V, vertical; PE, partially edentulous; TE, totally edentulous; Mx, maxilla; Mn, mandible; GT, graft type; FFBA, fresh-frozen bone allograft; FDBA, freeze-dried BA; DFDBA, demineralized FDBA; SDBA, solvent-dehydrated BA. PBA, processed bone allograft.
AuthorSDGTCo/Cain/onRBDTDSGLn (P)n (G)n (I)AgeTtIF-UpISR
(%)
Acocella et al., 2010 [33]PSRACoon-HPEMx15153041.06.012.0100
Altiparmak et al., 2020 [34]RSioCoCaonDBBM/PRFHVPEv53537756.366096.3
Astrand et al., 1996 [35]RSICCoCaon-HVTEMx171792-DI12.075
Bartols et al., 2018 [36]RCTRACoonRCMHPTEMx151515-4.012.0100
Bell et al., 2002 [37]RSICCoCaon-HVTEMn14147059.05.024.0100
Bienz et al., 2020 [38]RCTioCoCaonRCM/DBBMHVPE-12122047.5436100
Bormann et al., 2010 [39]PSRACoinRCMHVPEMn13224148.03.012.0100
Bormann et al., 2011 [40]RSRACoinRCMHVPEMn27408858.73.017.6100
Boronat et al., 2010 [41]RSio-on-HPE-373973-DI12.095.9
Boven et al., 2014 [42]RSICCoCaon-VTEMn40408061.04.060.098.7
Buser et al., 2002 [43]PSCH-onePTFEHPE-404061-7.560.0100
Chappuis et al., 2016 [44]PSio-onRCM/DBBMHPE-383852456.313398.1
Chiapasco et al., 1999 [45]PSio-on-HPE-151544-7.022.490.9
Chiapasco et al., 2012 [46]PSCVCoonRCM/DBBMVPTE-18186049.15.519.090.3
PSRACoonRCM/DBBMVPTE-18186049.15.519.093.1
Chiapasco et al., 2020 [47]RSRACoCaonRCM/DBBMHVPEMn757518249-12098.1
Cordaro et al., 2002 [48]PSio-on-HVPE-151540-6.012.0100
Cordaro et al., 2010 [49]PSRACoonRCM/DBBMHVPTEMx16163751.04.040.0100
Cordaro et al., 2011 [50]RCTRACoon-HPEMn17222742.04.024.0100
RCTRACoonRCM/DBBMHPEMn8112842.04.024.0100
De Santis et al., 2011 [51]PSICCoCainRCM/DBBMVTEMx202015458.94.066.497.4
De Stavola and Tunkel, 2013 [52]PSRACoon-VPE-10101854.04.012.0100
Dottore et al., 2013 [53]PSio-in-VPEMn11112252.16.012.090.9
Elo et al., 2009 [54]RS--on-VPE-6565184--36.097
Esposito et al., 2015 [55]RCTICCoCaonRCMHVTEMx13139252.04.012.098.9
Felice et al., 2009a [56]RCTICCaon-VPEMn10102354.03.518.0100
RCTICCain-VPEMn10102054.03.518.0100
Felice et al., 2009b [57]RCTICCain-VPEMn10101954.04.012.094.4
Gultekin et al., 2017 [58]RSICCoCaon-HVPTEMx18189648.47.530.796.9
Guo et al., 2020 [59]RSRACoinRCM/DBBMHPEMn565672-336100
Hartlev et al., 2020 [60]RCTRA-onRCM/DBBMHVPEMx13131352.362485
RCTRA-onPRFHVPEMx14141447.9624100
Is¸ık et al., 2020 [61]RCTRACoCaonPRFVPEMn11112450.9612100
Jensen et al., 2006 [62]RSRACoin-VPEMx101015-4.060.0100
Jemt & Lekholm, 2003 [63]PSCHCoCaon-HPEMx10101026.16.024.0100
Kablan, 2020 [64]RSCVCoon-HVPTEMn11186345DI48100
Kawakami et al., 2013 [65]PSRACoin-VPEMn11112252.16.012.0100
Keller et al., 1999 [66]RSeo-on-HVPTEMx3232204-5.014486.3
Kim et al., 2013 [67]RSRACoon-VPTE-28286143.16.285.294.2
Levin et al., 2007 [68]RSio-on-HPE-505012945.45.224.396.9
McCarthy et al., 2003 [69]PSRACoCaon-HPEMx10103531.4-36.097.1
McGrath et al., 1996 [70]RSICCoCaonHAHVTEMn18183657.0DI17.091.6
Meijndert et al., 2005 [71]PSCHCoon-HPEMx10101032.93.012.0100
Meijndert et al., 2008 [72]RCTioCoCaon-HPEMn31313133.33.012.0100
RCTioCoCaonRCMHPEMn31313133.33.012.0100
RCTioCoCaonRCM/DBBMHPEMn31313133.33.012.093.5
Mendoza-Azpur et al., 2019 [73]RCTRACoonRCM/DBBMHPE-20203149.66.018.0100
Mertens et al., 2012 [74]RSIC-on-VPTE-993453.36.012.3100
RSCV-on-VPTE-14146553.36.012.398.5
Molly et al., 2006 [75]RSICCoCaon-HVPTEMx18188545.58.016877.2
Nielsen and Jensen, 2020 [76]RSRACoCaonRCMHPEMn243948235.5120100
Nyström et al., 2004 [77]PSICCoCaon-HVTEMx303017753.2DI12088.7
Nyström et al., 2009 [78]PSICCoCaon-HVTEMx444433458.06.013291.9
Pelo et al., 2010 [79]PSICCoCain-HVTEMn191914158.84.048.093.6
Penarrocha-Diago et al., 2013 [80]RSio-onRCM/βTCPHPTE-21213348.06.812.096.9
RSio-onRCM/βTCPHPTE-21243848.0DI12.0100
Penarrocha-Oltra et al., 2014 [81]RSRACoCaonRCM/βTCPVPEMn20204548.47.012.095.6
Pistilli et al., 2014 [23]RCTRA/ICCoCaonRCMHVPTE-20208149.54.012.098.8
Raghoebar et al., 1996 [82]PSioCoCaon-HVPEMx27273136.03.037.0100
Raghoebar et al., 2003 [83]PSICCoCaon-HTEMx10106855.53.012.095.6
Sbodorne et al., 2015 [84]RSioCoon-HPE-17287350.34.060.096.8
Sbordone et al., 2009 [85]RS--on-HVPE-404848-4.036.099.1
Schwarzt-Arad et al., 2016 [86]RSioCoCaon-HVPE-21422466750.35.613793.4
Sethi and Kaus, 2001 [87]PSioCoon-HVPE-606011847.04.522.098.2
Sjöström et al., 2007 [88]PSICCoCaon-HTEMx292922258.06.012.092.3
Smolka et al., 2006 [89]PSCVCoon-VTEMn10102059.36.030.095
Stellingsma et al., 2013 [90]RCTICCoCain-HVTEMn20208059.43.076.088.8
Stricker et al., 2021 [91]RSRACoCaon-HVPE-111622533.517100
Thor et al., 2005 [92]RCTICCoCaon-HVTEMx19197658.06.012.097.4
Tosun et al., 2017 [93]RSICCoCaon-HVPTEV5561-329100
RSICCoCaon-HVPTEV5542-DI2992.8
Van der Mark et al., 2010 [94]RSICCoCaon-HVTEMx17178653.05.517.097.6
RSICCoCain-HVTEMx10105453.05.517.094.4
Van der Meij et al., 2005 [95]RSICCoCaon-VTEMn17173456.0DI52.088.2
Van Steenberghe et al., 1997 [96]RSICCoCa--HVPTEMx13137249.0DI12.085
Verhoeven et al., 1997 [97]PSICCoCaon-VTEMn13133059.5DI73.0100
Vermeeren et al., 1996 [98]PSICCoCaon-VTEMn31317851.0DI60.090
Vinci et al., 2019 [99]RSCVCoon-VTE-324120761.15.012097.1
Widmark et al., 2001 [100]PSIC---HPTEMx20101101--12.083.1
Wiltfang et al., 2005 [101]RSICCoCaon-HVPTEMx393923556.36.054.091.5
Wiltfang et al., 2014 [102]PSICCoCaon/inRCMVPE-404023758.0-24.099.2
PSICCoCaon/inRCM/DBBMVPE-404024864.7-24.098.8
Table 2. Studies reporting the survival rates of implants placed in allogeneic bone grafts.
Table 2. Studies reporting the survival rates of implants placed in allogeneic bone grafts.
AuthorSDGTCo/Cain/onRBDTDSGLn (P)n (G)n (I)AgeTtIF-UpISR (%)
Acocella et al., 2012 [103]PSFFBACoCaon-HTEMx16183441.06.018.0100
Ahmadi et al., 2017 [104]PSFDBACoCaonRCMHPEMx10101045.07.015.1100
Amorfini et al., 2014 [105]RCTSDBACoCaonRCMHVPEMn16162559.5DI12.0100
Aslan et al., 2016 [106]RSDFDBACoon-HPTE-11123239.55.024.0100
Carinci et al., 2010 [107]RSFFBACoCaon-HVPTEMx696928752.05.026.098.3
Carinci et al., 2009 [108]RSFFBACoon-HVTEMn212863-6.020.096.8
Chaushu et al., 2019 [109]RSFDBACaonRCM/DBBMHVPEMn14142638.06.026.0100
Contar et al., 2009 [110]RSFFBACoon-HVTEMx15345144.09.024.0100
Deluiz et al., 2016 [111]PSFFBACoCaon-HV-Mx589226858.05.012.094.0
Dias et al., 2016 [112]PSFFBACoCaonRCM/DBBMHVPEMn12303050.96.026.096.7
Franco et al., 2009 [113]RSFFBACoon-HVPTE-36369453.06.025.095.7
Keith et al., 2006 [114]PSSDBACoCaonRCMHV--738297-6.014.899
Maiorana et al., 2016 [115]PSFFBACoCaonRCMHVPTE-454526253.96.426.090.8
Chaushu et al., 2009 [116]PSFDBACaonRCMHVPEMx11121224.0DI15.0100
Nissan et al., 2011a [117]PSFDBACaonRCMHVPEMn21298555.76.037.095.3
Nissan et al., 2011b [118]PSFDBACaonRCMHVPE-12192121.06.030.095.2
Nissan et al., 2011c [119]PSFDBACaonRCMHVPEMx31466332.06.034.098
Nissan et al., 2011d [120]PSFDBACaonRCMHVPEMx20283125.06.042.096.8
Nord et al., 2019 [121]RSFDBA RingCainRCM/DBBMVPE-51818158.8DI12.097.5
Novell et al., 2012 [122]RSFDBACoCaonRCMHVPTE-20416238.56.030.7100
Procopio et al., 2019 [123]RSFFBACoCa--HVTE-483483140551.8-60.096.2
Silva et al., 2017 [124]PSFFBACoCaonRCM/DBBMHVPEMn20505051.86.031.896
Tresguerres et al., 2019 [125]RCTFDBACoCaonPRGFHPTEMx28145365.84.024.0100
RCTFDBACoonPRGFHPTEMx28143965.84.024.0100
Table 3. Comparative studies reporting the survival rates of implants placed in autogenous and allogeneic bone grafts.
Table 3. Comparative studies reporting the survival rates of implants placed in autogenous and allogeneic bone grafts.
AuthorSDGTCo/Cain/onRBDTDSGLn (P)n (G)n (I)AgeTtIF-UpISR (%)
Al-Abedalla et al., 2015 [126]PS-CoCaon--PE-43438357.85.534.896.4
PSPBACoCaon--PE-16166357.85.731.196.8
Chiapasco et al., 2015 [127]PSICCoCaon-HVTEMx774956.04.524.0100
PSFFBACoCaon-HVTEMx885956.04.524.090.1
Dellavia et al., 2016 [128]PSICCoCaonRCM-PTE-663253.08.015.0100
PSFFBACoCaonRCM-PTE-14146953.07.015.096.8
Kloss et al., 2018 [129]RSRACoCaonRCMHVPE-21212148.06.012.0100
RSFDBACaonRCMHPE-21212148.06.012.0100
Park et al., 2017 [130]RSioCoonRCMVPE-991553.05.132.9100
RSFDBACoCaonRCMVPE-12122653.07.532.9100
Schlee et al., 2014 [16]RSRA-onRCMHVPE-21213349.36.059.5100
RSSDBACaonRCMHVPE-10101549.36.028.6100
Table 4. Overview of patients (n(P)), grafts (n(G)) and implants (n(I)) included into the analysis for respective subgroups. Mean ISR (M), standard deviation (SD), and p-values from rank-analysis of the overall ISR with all established sub-entities via the Kruskal–Wallis test and multiple comparisons of the overall ISRs with each sub-entity via the uncontrolled Dunn’s test (p ≤ 0.05).
Table 4. Overview of patients (n(P)), grafts (n(G)) and implants (n(I)) included into the analysis for respective subgroups. Mean ISR (M), standard deviation (SD), and p-values from rank-analysis of the overall ISR with all established sub-entities via the Kruskal–Wallis test and multiple comparisons of the overall ISRs with each sub-entity via the uncontrolled Dunn’s test (p ≤ 0.05).
Implant Survival Rate (%)
Autograftn (P)n (G)n (I)MSDp
1. Overall21952397686196.235.19<0.0001 ***,
2a. Intraoral12481327255797.973.300.045 *,
2b. Ramus48453498298.463.420.011 *,
2c. Extraoral708805379793.886.320.023 *,
2d. Iliac crest591672317893.766.560.035 *,
3a. Cortical431488111198.392.750.048 *,
3b. Cortico-cancellous11851215446995.245.750.21
4a. Onlay graft19141995592996.455.060.89
4b. Inlay graft21723972896.653.880.83
5a. Resorption barrier821872205297.583.690.24
5b. Collagen membrane25729976199.261.720.021 *,
5c. Relining509518118696.544.140.84
5d. Without resorption barrier13431476477895.385.760.35
6a. Horizontal augmentation617740143996.914.310.60
6b. Vertical augmentation14981559527695.845.550.66
7a. Partially edentulous13451426317598.083.130.049 *,
7b. Totally edentulous430439218093.925.700.021 *,
8a. Maxilla496577240793.757.270.16
8b. Mandible558610135596.864.050.54
9a. Young patients21123434298.612.410.078
9b. Old patients15811651543696.184.710.61
11a. Immediate implantation23424673591.567.220.023 *,
11b. Early implantation10761164327697.603.400.22
11c. Late implantation818831249995.935.230.75
12a. Short follow-up9001024285396.555.370.51
12b. Long follow-up12641324397795.705.000.35
Allograftn (P)n (G)n (I)MSDp
1. Overall12021384343497.662.680.342
2a. Fresh-frozen BA797907267295.942.950.062
2b. Processed BA40547776298.811.700.15
3a. Cortical11112427998.501.870.53
3b. Cancellous19126035598.081.920.82
3c. Cortico-cancellous855955253897.592.740.89
4. Onlay graft668820194897.722.760.88
5a. Resorption barrier41356098697.892.460.86
5b. Collagen membrane31638579997.992.660.67
5c. Relining *9717518797.541.520.65
5d. without resorption barrier789824244897.332.950.82
6a. Horizontal augmentation11489189100.000.000.022 *,
6b. Vertical augmentation10581265311397.112.810.41
7a. Partially edentulous27739455998.141.870.73
7b. Totally edentulous543571161296.623.620.68
8a. Maxilla29434590797.933.070.53
8b. Mandible10416727997.441.880.58
9a. Early implantation21822580197.033.490.85
9b. Late implantation423567111097.732.450.94
10a. Young patients15022433298.891.710.21
10b. Old patients9581050294297.062.960.47
11a. Short follow-up38145691498.282.800.31
11b. Long follow-up821928252096.002.400.31
Kruskal–Wallis test; uncontrolled Dunn’s test. (p < 0.05 */0.0005 ***)
Table 5. Statistical analysis of nonparametric data with Kruskal–Wallis test for multiple comparisons and Mann–Whitney U test for pairwise comparisons (p < 0.05). A, AUBB, B = ALBB; Co.-Ca., cortico-cancellous; w/o RB, without resorption barrier; part. Edent., partially edentulous; imme., immediate; FUP, follow-up. (p < 0.05 */0.005 **/0.0005 ***).
Table 5. Statistical analysis of nonparametric data with Kruskal–Wallis test for multiple comparisons and Mann–Whitney U test for pairwise comparisons (p < 0.05). A, AUBB, B = ALBB; Co.-Ca., cortico-cancellous; w/o RB, without resorption barrier; part. Edent., partially edentulous; imme., immediate; FUP, follow-up. (p < 0.05 */0.005 **/0.0005 ***).
Overall (A)Overall (B)Overall (A)Processed BA (B)Fresh-Frozen BA (B)Overall (B)Intraoral (A)Extraoral (A)
vs.0.54vs.0.070.98vs.0.940.002 **
vs.0.004 ** vs.0.0003 ***
Ramus (A)Ilium (A)Co.-Ca. (A)Cortical (A)Co.-Ca. (B)Cortical (B)Cancellous (B)Onlay (A)Inlay (A)Onlay (B)
vs.0.0002 ***vs.0.005 **0.23--vs.0.900.55
vs.-0.89-
vs.>0.99>0.99
Res.-Barrier (A)w/o RB (A)Res.-Barrier (B)w/o RB (B)Membrane (A)Relining (A)Membrane (B)Relining * (B)
vs.0.0710.74-vs.0.019 *0.21-
vs.-0.74 vs.-0.97
vs.0.48 vs.0.50
Horizontal (A)Vertical (A)Horizontal (B)Vertical (B)Part. Edent. (A)Totally Edent. (A)Part. Edent. (B)Totally Edent. (B)
vs.0.440.053-vs.0.0002 ***0.53-
vs.-0.091 vs.-0.33
vs.0.009 ** vs.0.57
Maxilla (A)Mandible (A)Maxilla (B)Mandible (B)<45 Years (A)>45 Years (A)<45 Years (B)>45 Years (B)
vs.0.110.10-vs.0.044 *>0.99-
vs.-0.96 vs.-0.87
vs.0.40 vs.0.11
Imme. Implantation (A)<6 mon. (A)≥6 mon. (A)<6 mon. (B)≥6 mon. (B)Short-FUP (A)Long-FUP (A)S-FUP (B)L-FUP (B)
vs.0.018 *0.21vs.0.90vs.0.170.35-
vs.0.660.66- vs.-0.86
vs.-0.48 vs.0.082
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Donkiewicz, P.; Benz, K.; Kloss-Brandstätter, A.; Jackowski, J. Survival Rates of Dental Implants in Autogenous and Allogeneic Bone Blocks: A Systematic Review. Medicina 2021, 57, 1388. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57121388

AMA Style

Donkiewicz P, Benz K, Kloss-Brandstätter A, Jackowski J. Survival Rates of Dental Implants in Autogenous and Allogeneic Bone Blocks: A Systematic Review. Medicina. 2021; 57(12):1388. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57121388

Chicago/Turabian Style

Donkiewicz, Phil, Korbinian Benz, Anita Kloss-Brandstätter, and Jochen Jackowski. 2021. "Survival Rates of Dental Implants in Autogenous and Allogeneic Bone Blocks: A Systematic Review" Medicina 57, no. 12: 1388. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57121388

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop