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
. 2022 Mar 1;27(2):e181-e190.
doi: 10.4317/medoral.25169.

Intraoral onlay block bone grafts versus cortical tenting technique on alveolar ridge augmentations: a systematic review

A Aloy-Prósper  1 , E Carramolino-Cuéllar, D Peñarrocha-Oltra, D Soto-Peñaloza, M Peñarrocha-Diago
Affiliations

Intraoral onlay block bone grafts versus cortical tenting technique on alveolar ridge augmentations: a systematic review

A Aloy-Prósper et al. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. .

Abstract

Background: To review systematically the bone gain and superficial resorption rate of the onlay block bone grafts versus the cortical tenting technique, as well as secondarily study the postoperative complications, implant survival and success rates, and peri-implant marginal bone loss.

Material and methods: Following the recommended methods for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA), an electronic search was performed in the PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE and the Cochrane Library of the Cochrane Collaboration (CENTRAL) databases to identify all relevant articles published up to March 2021 on onlay block bone grafts and cortical tenting technique.

Results: Eighteen papers complied with the inclusion criteria. In onlay grafts, the vertical bone gain mean was 4.24 mm, and resorption 20.91%; and 4.29 mm in the horizontal augmentation with a resorption of 10.28%. The complication rate was 14.8%. The implant survival and success rates were 100% and 92%; and the mean peri-implant bone loss ranged from 0.6 to 1.26 mm. In cortical tenting technique, the vertical bone gain mean was 6.17 mm and the resorption of 9.99%; and 5.55 mm in the horizontal augmentation with a 6.12% of resorption. The complication rate was 24.6%. The implant survival and success rates were 96.63% and 100%; and the mean peri-implant bone loss ranged from 0.27 to 0.77mm.

Conclusions: Despite the limitations, both techniques offer a predictable way to reconstruct atrophic alveolar ridges, though the cortical tenting technique seems to achieve a greater bone gain and a lower surface resorption. Current evidence is still limited due to the inadequate follow-up, lack of information referred to methodological quality and sample attrition.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flowchart of searching and selection process of titles during systematic review.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Randomized studies risk of bias following Cochrane´s guidelines.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Observational non-randomized studies according to Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Chiapasco M, Zaniboni M, Boisco M. Augmentation procedures for the rehabilitation of deficient edentulous ridges with oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17:136–59. - PubMed
    1. Nkenke E, Neukam FW. Autogenous bone harvesting and grafting in advanced jaw resorption: morbidity, resorption and implant survival. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014;7:S203–17. - PubMed
    1. Khoury F, Hanser T. Mandibular bone block harvesting from the retromolar region: A 10-year prospective clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30:688–97. - PubMed
    1. Brugnami F, Caiazzo A, Leone C. Local intraoral autologous bone harvesting for dental implant treatment: alternative sources and criteria of choice. Keio J Med. 2009;58:24–8. - PubMed
    1. Maiorana C, Beretta M, Salina S, Santoro F. Reduction of autogenous bone graft resorption by means of bio-oss coverage: a prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2005;25:19–25. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources