Is Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 as Effective as Alveolar Distraction Osteogenesis for Vertical Bone Regeneration?

被引:10
作者
Reuss, Jose M. [1 ,2 ]
Pi-Anfruns, Joan [3 ]
Moy, Peter K. [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Sch Dent, Dept Surg Implant Dent, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
[2] Univ Complutense Madrid, Dept Postgrad Prosthodont, Madrid, Spain
[3] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Sch Dent, Dent Implant Ctr, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
[4] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Sch Dent, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
关键词
DEFICIENT EDENTULOUS RIDGES; IMPLANT PLACEMENT; DENTAL IMPLANTS; DISEASE TRANSMISSION; AUGMENTATION; AESTHETICS; DEFECTS; RHBMP-2; HUMANS; RESTORATIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.joms.2017.11.016
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical effectiveness of alveolar distraction osteogenesis (ADO) versus recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rh-BMP-2) for vertical ridge augmentation. Few data have been published on vertical bone regeneration using rh-BMP-2. Materials and Methods: The authors implemented a retrospective cohort study and enrolled a sample composed of patients with deficient alveolar vertical bone height. The primary predictor variable was vertical augmentation with BMP-2 and a titanium mesh or ADO. The primary outcome variable was gain in vertical bone height (millimeters) measured using computed tomography. The secondary outcome variable was postoperative complications, namely need for further grafting before or simultaneous with implant placement, soft tissue dehiscence, paresthesia, infection, implant failure, and pain. Other outcomes included implant stability at time of placement and follow-up (implant stability quotient by resonance frequency analysis), surgical time (minutes), and total treatment time until implant placement (weeks). Other study variables included location of reconstruction (maxilla or mandible). Appropriate bivariate statistics were computed and statistical significance was set a P value less than .05. Results: The retrospective review yielded 21 patients in the BMP group and 19 in the ADO group. For the BMP-2 group, the average vertical bone gain was 2.96 +/- 1.8 mm overall (maxilla, mean 3.6 +/- 3.1 mm; mandible, mean 2.32 +/- 1.8 mm). For the ADO group, this gain was 4 +/- 1.69 mm overall (maxilla, mean 2.8 +/- 1.94 mm; mandible, mean 5.2 +/- 4.67 mm). For complications, group BMP showed a statistically minor tendency for more postoperative problems, such as wound dehiscence. For implant survival, group BMP showed a 92.2% survival rate versus 96.3% in group ADO at 3 to 45 months after delivery of the prosthesis (average, 22 months). Conclusion: The 2 techniques showed similar values in absolute vertical bone gain. Group ADO showed a slightly better outcome in outright vertical regenerative potential, albeit with a more frequent need for regrafting before and simultaneous with implant placement. Group BMP showed a lesser need for regrafting, despite having a higher postoperative complication rate. (C) 2017 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.
引用
收藏
页码:752 / 760
页数:9
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]   The Effect of NELL1 and Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 on Calvarial Bone Regeneration [J].
Aghaloo, Tara ;
Cowan, Catherine M. ;
Zhang, Xinli ;
Freymiller, Earl ;
Soo, Chia ;
Wu, Benjamin ;
Ting, Kang ;
Zhang, Zhiyuan .
JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2010, 68 (02) :300-308
[2]  
Aghaloo TL, 2007, INT J ORAL MAX IMPL, V22, P49
[3]   Bone morphogenetic proteins in tissue engineering: the road from laboratory to clinic, part II (BMP delivery) [J].
Bessa, P. C. ;
Casal, M. ;
Reis, R. L. .
JOURNAL OF TISSUE ENGINEERING AND REGENERATIVE MEDICINE, 2008, 2 (2-3) :81-96
[4]   De novo bone induction by recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) in maxillary sinus floor augmentation [J].
Boyne, PJ ;
Lilly, LC ;
Marx, RE ;
Moy, PK ;
Nevins, M ;
Spagnoli, DB ;
Triplett, RG .
JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2005, 63 (12) :1693-1707
[5]  
Brugnami Federico, 2005, Keio Journal of Medicine, V54, P172, DOI 10.2302/kjm.54.172
[6]  
Buser D, 2004, INT J ORAL MAX IMPL, V19, P43
[7]   Alveolar distraction osteogenesis for oral rehabilitation in reconstructed jaws [J].
Cheung, Lim K. ;
Hariri, Firdaus ;
Chua, Hannah D. P. .
CURRENT OPINION IN OTOLARYNGOLOGY & HEAD AND NECK SURGERY, 2011, 19 (04) :312-316
[8]  
Chiapasco M, 2004, INT J ORAL MAX IMPL, V19, P399
[9]   Alveolar distraction osteogenesis vs. vertical guided bone regeneration for the correction of vertically deficient edentulous ridges: A 1-3-year prospective study on humans [J].
Chiapasco, M ;
Romeo, E ;
Casentini, P ;
Rimondini, L .
CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2004, 15 (01) :82-95
[10]   Distraction osteogenesis in maxillofacial surgery using internal devices: Review of five cases [J].
Chin, M ;
Toth, BA .
JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 1996, 54 (01) :45-53