Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2008 Mar;105(3):282-92.
doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.07.009.

Alveolar distraction osteogenesis versus inlay bone grafting in posterior mandibular atrophy: a prospective study

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Alveolar distraction osteogenesis versus inlay bone grafting in posterior mandibular atrophy: a prospective study

Alberto Bianchi et al. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008 Mar.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare bone gain, implant survival, implant success, bone resorption, and complication rate in groups of patients who underwent distraction osteogenesis (DO) and inlay bone grafting (Inlay) for preprosthetic issues in the atrophic posterior mandible.

Study design: Twelve surgical sites were randomly assigned to 2 treatment groups: group A: DO and group B: Inlay. After 3 to 4 months, 16 fixtures in the DO group and 21 in the Inlay group were placed for fixed prosthetic rehabilitation. The median follow-up was 26 months.

Results: The median bone gain was 10 versus 5.8 mm (DO versus Inlay, P = .003); the median bone resorption was 1.4 mm versus 0.9 mm (DO versus Inlay, P = .088). The implant survival rate was 100% for each group, while the implant success rate was 93.7% (DO) versus 95.2% (Inlay) (P > .05). The complication rate was 60% for DO and 14.3% for Inlay (P < .05).

Conclusion: DO obtained more vertical bone gain than Inlay, but was more prone to complications in the pre-implantology phase. The implant results in each group were comparable to those in native alveolar bone.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types