RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Bone regeneration grafts (BRG) are widely used in the treatment of osseous defects and oral surgery. The various techniques and associated success rates of bone augmentation require evaluation by systematic review and meta-analysis of eligible studies. The aim of this systematic review was to compare alveolar bone regeneration in humans using Bio-Oss and autogenous bone graft. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The computerized bibliographical databases including Pubmed, Google, ScienceDirect and Cochrane were searched for randomized and cohort studies in which autogenous grafts were compared to Bio-Oss in the treatment of periodontal defects. The inclusion criteria were human studies in English that were published 1998-2009. Exclusion criteria included non randomized observation and cohort studies, papers which provided summary statistics without the variance estimates, and studies that did not use BRG intervention alone, were excluded. The screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were collected by two observers independently. For comparing autogenous grafts used alone against Bio-Oss used alone 5 situations were investigated. Thirteen studies were included in the review which compared autogenous against Bio-Oss, autogenous combined with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) against GTR, Bio-Oss combined with GTR versus GTR, autogenous alone versus Open Flap Debridement (OFD), Bio-Oss versus OFD. In meta-analysis, changes in bone level (bone fill) was used as the measure. Data were analyzed using Bayesian meta-analysis by WinBUGS and Boa software. RESULTS: Only one comparison demonstrated that the difference in bone augmentation between Bio-Oss and OFD was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to show that Bio-Oss is superior to autogenous grafts in bone augmentation techniques however autogenous bone involves donor site surgery and thus donor site morbidity, so we can conclude that Bio-Oss is better than autogenous for alveolar regeneration. [Iranian Endodontic Journal 2009;4(4):125-30].
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Immediate loading of dental implants has been introduced as a method of reducing implant treatment time without compromising its prognosis. In this research, the effects of loading time on the amount of bone-to-implant contact and bone formation around dental implants were evaluated histologically. METHODS: Three months prior to implantation, the lower premolar teeth of 15 dogs were extracted. Three or four dental implants were placed in the healed extraction sites for each dog (N = 48). Dividing the dogs into three groups, the implants were either loaded 48 hours or 1 week later with metallic or prefabricated acrylic crowns or were left unloaded until the time of sacrifice. Three months after implant insertion, the animals were sacrificed and samples were investigated to define the amount of bone-to-implant contact, lamellar and woven bone percentage, and local inflammation of the newly formed bone. RESULTS: No significant difference in the observed criteria was reported among the three groups (P >0.05); however, the unloaded group had the highest degree of bone-to-implant contact and the group loaded 48 hours after the primary implant insertion had the least. The prosthesis type had no significant effect on the implant success rate (P >0.05). The lamellar and woven bone percentage of newly formed bone also did not differ in the three groups (P >0.05). One implant from each group failed in this study. CONCLUSION: Loading time does not seem to significantly affect the degree of osseointegration and bone-to-implant contact and the composition of newly formed bone around dental implants.
