Premium
The alveolar ridge splitting/expansion technique: a systematic review
Author(s) -
Bassetti Mario A.,
Bassetti Renzo G.,
Bosshardt Dieter D.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.12537
Subject(s) - medicine , dentistry , alveolar ridge , radiological weapon , systematic review , buccal administration , meta analysis , dental alveolus , medline , randomized controlled trial , human studies , animal studies , orthodontics , surgery , implant , political science , law
Purpose The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate clinical, radiological and histological outcomes of the alveolar ridge splitting/expansion technique ( ARST ) with or without GBR . Materials and Methods A screening of two databases MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE ( OVID ) and hand search of articles were performed. Human and animal studies reporting on dental implants placed with simultaneous ARST up to May 31st 2014 were considered. Quality assessment of selected full‐text articles was performed according to the ARRIVE guidelines and the Cochrane collaboration's tool to assess risk of bias. Results Overall, 18 human and six animal studies (risk of bias: high/unclear) were included in this review. No randomized controlled trials were found. Due to the heterogeneity of study designs, definitions of success criteria, outcome variables, observation times and surgical procedures, no meta‐analysis was performed. Reported survival (18 studies) and success (nine studies) rates ranged from 91.7 to 100% and 88.2 to 100%, respectively, with a mean follow‐up of 1–10 years. Crestal bone level changes (∆ CBL ) in some studies indicate slightly higher bone loss before and after loading. Histologic and histomorphometric data from six animal studies confirm the crestal bone loss, particularly at buccal sites. Conclusions Within the limitations of this review, ARST seems to be a well‐functioning one‐stage alternative to extended two‐stage horizontal grafting procedures. Data indicate that during healing and first year of loading, increased ∆ CBL particularly at buccal sites must be anticipated. Additional horizontal GBR can help to preserve buccal bone height and width.