Home  |  About JAPTR |  Editorial board  |  Search |  Ahead of print  |  Current issue  |  Archives |  Submit article  |  Instructions  |  Subscribe  |  Advertise  |  Contacts  |Login 
Users Online: 276   Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
     
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 46-50

Biomaterial selection for bone augmentation in implant dentistry: A systematic review


1 Student, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Periodontics, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Private Practitioner, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Mr. Behzad Houshmand
Department of Periodontics, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Science, Tehran
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/japtr.JAPTR_327_18

Rights and Permissions

In the present study, a systematic review was conducted to evaluate the biomaterials and their effectiveness for bone augmentation in implant dentistry. The databases of Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information), and Scopus were searched for published studies between 2006 and March 30, 2018. We only included clinical studies in this research. Due to a lack of quantitative evidence and the vast heterogeneity of the biomaterials, implant surgery sites, implant types, follow-up periods, and various implant placement techniques (1-stage or 2-stage), we could not manage to do a meta-analysis on the 13 included studies. Several techniques can result in vertical bone augmentation. Complications can be seen in vertical bone augmentation and especially in the autogenous bone grafting; however, some biomaterials showed promising results to be practical substitutes for autogenous bone. Bio-Oss and beta-tricalcium phosphate are our second-level candidates for vertical bone augmentation due to their promising clinical results with the least infection and immunologic response risk. The gold standard, however, remains the autogenous bone graft. Further clinical studies in the future with exact report of bone measures are needed to develop new comparisons and quantitative analyses.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed5042    
    Printed99    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded1033    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 12    

Recommend this journal