Quality and Success of Bone Graft from Two Different Mandibular Sites Compared for Maxillary Ridge Augmentation: A Systematic Review
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AIM: This systematic review was undertaken to compare the quality of autogenous bone graft harvested from two different mandibular donor sites, that is, from the chin region and from posterior mandibular region for maxillary alveolar ridge augmentation and success after implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic searches were performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane electronic databases, which reported on the quality of autogenous harvested bone graft of the recipient site in maxillary alveolar ridge augmentation from a period of January 1995 to December 2020 using PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if: They reported on bone grafts harvested from the chin and body region of the mandible. Time and nature of postoperative complications were reported. Quality comparison of autogenous bone graft from both chin and posterior mandible was done from the analysis of extracted data of all articles. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Out of the eight studies that have been included, five studies concluded that graft from the retromolar region of the mandible produced better quality bone graft compared with graft from the chin region. In contrast, two studies showed the opposite that graft from the chin is better in quality than the graft from the retromolar region. Whereas one study mentioned not being able to find any significant difference in the quality of two grafts. The implant placement also showed a maximum success rate in the retromolar region compared with the chin region in four studies whereas in one study, the success rate was better in the chin region and in three studies, no significant difference could be found in the success rate of implant placement in two different graft regions taken from two different donor sites of the mandible. CONCLUSION: This systematic review demonstrates that the retromolar group has shown better results for ridge augmentation in the maxilla compared with the chin group. The retromolar group also produces better and more successful implant placement with fewer chances of failure compared with the chin group. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: In oral surgery, the use of dental implants for partial and complete edentulous jaw rehabilitation is standard procedure. Both hard and soft tissues must be present in adequate quantity and quality for implant dentistry to produce the best results. Patients with resorbed jaws can receive implant-supported restorations by a variety of reconstructive methods, such as tissue regeneration and the use of vascularized or nonvascularized grafts. How to cite this article: Mondal C, Mohanty R, Rana P, et al. Quality and Success of Bone Graft from Two Different Mandibular Sites Compared for Maxillary Ridge Augmentation: A Systematic Review. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(7):703-710.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle