PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of inlay and onlay bone grafting techniques in terms of vertical bone formation and implant outcomes for correcting atrophic posterior mandibles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty surgical sites were assigned to two treatment groups, inlay and onlay, with iliac crest as donor site. After 3 to 4 months, 43 implants were placed and loaded 4 months later. The median follow up after loading was 18 months. RESULTS: For the inlay versus onlay group, median bone gain was 4.9 versus 6.5 mm (p = .019), median bone resorption was 0.5 versus 2.75 mm (p < .001), and median final vertical augmentation was 4.1 versus 4 mm (p = .190). The implant survival rate was 100% in both groups, while the implant success rate was 90% versus 86.9% (p = .190, not significant). A minor and major complication rate of 20% and 10%, respectively, for both groups was encountered. CONCLUSIONS: Inlay results in less bone resorption and more predictable outcomes, but requires an experienced surgeon. In contrast, onlay results in greater bone resorption and requires a bone block graft oversized in height, but involves a shorter learning curve. Once implant placement has been carried out, the outcomes are similar for both procedures

INLAY VERSUS ONLAY ILIAC BONE GRAFTING IN ATROPHIC POSTERIOR MANDIBLE: A PROSPECTIVE CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL FOR THE COMPARISON OF TWO TECHNIQUES.

FELICE, PIETRO;LIZIO, GIUSEPPE;PELLEGRINO, GERARDO;MARCHETTI, CLAUDIO
2009

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of inlay and onlay bone grafting techniques in terms of vertical bone formation and implant outcomes for correcting atrophic posterior mandibles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty surgical sites were assigned to two treatment groups, inlay and onlay, with iliac crest as donor site. After 3 to 4 months, 43 implants were placed and loaded 4 months later. The median follow up after loading was 18 months. RESULTS: For the inlay versus onlay group, median bone gain was 4.9 versus 6.5 mm (p = .019), median bone resorption was 0.5 versus 2.75 mm (p < .001), and median final vertical augmentation was 4.1 versus 4 mm (p = .190). The implant survival rate was 100% in both groups, while the implant success rate was 90% versus 86.9% (p = .190, not significant). A minor and major complication rate of 20% and 10%, respectively, for both groups was encountered. CONCLUSIONS: Inlay results in less bone resorption and more predictable outcomes, but requires an experienced surgeon. In contrast, onlay results in greater bone resorption and requires a bone block graft oversized in height, but involves a shorter learning curve. Once implant placement has been carried out, the outcomes are similar for both procedures
Felice P; Pistilli R; Lizio G; Pellegrino G; Nisii A; Marchetti C.
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11585/80947
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 13
  • Scopus 94
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact