Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-03-17, 11:08:54 | version 1.38.0
B i o m a t e r i a l s f o r o n l a y b o n e g r a f t s Biological and physical properties of bone block grafting biomaterials for alveolar ridge augmentation Alberto Monjea & Hom-Lay Wanga a Graduate Periodontics, Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., U.S. C o r r e s p o n d i n g a u t h o r : Dr. Alberto Monje and Prof. Hom-Lay Wang Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine School of Dentistry University of Michigan 1011 North University Ave. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1078 U.S. T +1 734 763 3383 amonjec@umich.edu homlay@umich.edu H o w t o c i t e t h i s a r t i c l e : Monje A, Wang HL. Biological and physical properties of bone block substitute biomaterials for ridge augmentation. J Oral Science Rehabilitation. 2017 Mar;3(1):18–30. Abstract O b j e c t i v e Bone resorption of maxillary ridges is an unavoidable process that occurs after tooth extraction. Many treatment alternatives have been proposed to facilitate implant placement in these scenarios. Drawbacks such as morbidity, cost and excessive resorption owing to the procedure have prompted clinicians to seek biomaterials as an alternative to autogenous bone. The objective of this article was to review the current state of the art by means of the biological and physical properties of biomaterials used for block grafting in atrophic maxillary ridges. Secondly, it was aimed herein at presenting the clinical and histological findings when using these biomaterials. M a t e r i a l s a n d m e t h o d s An electronic and manual literature search was conducted by two inde- pendent reviewers using several databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register databases, for articles written in English up to June 2016. Owing to the heterogeneity of the findings, quantitative assessment could not be conducted. As such, a narrative review was carried out on the biological and physical aspects of biomaterials used for block grafting. R e s u l t s Both allogeneic and xenogeneic block grafts have been developed to over- come deficiencies of autogenous grafts. Allogeneic block grafts have been widely investigated, but there is a lack of long-term follow-up. On the contrary, xenogeneic block grafts have only limited scientific evidence of their suitability for ridge reconstruction. C o n c l u s i o n Allogeneic and xenogeneic bone block grafts represent a promising alter- native to autogenous bone for ridge augmentation. Nonetheless, the ev- idence supporting xenogeneic block graft usage remains minimal; hence, more long-term human studies are needed to validate their efectiveness. In addition, using prefabricated scafolds impregnated with growth factors provides an interesting field to be further explored. K e y w o r d s Bone grafting, bone biomaterials, allogeneic, xenogeneic, bone substitutes. 18 Volume 3 | Issue 1/2017 Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation