English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Objectives  The aim of this study was to compare three‐dimensional alterations following the use of autogenous versus allogeneic onlay grafts for augmentation at single tooth defects.    Materials and methods  Alveolar bone width at specific implant sites were assessed using sagittal and cross‐sectional CBCT images prior grafting and at three subsequent time points. Twenty‐one patients received autogenous bone blocks harvested from the retromolar region and another 21 patients received freeze‐dried cancellous allogeneic bone blocks.    Results  The vertical and horizontal dimensions did not significantly differ between autogenous and allogeneic bone grafts at any time point. In addition, there were no statistically significant differences in graft remodeling rates between autogenous (mean shrinkage rate after 12 months: 12.5% ± 7.8%) and allogeneic onlay grafts (mean shrinkage rate after 12 months: 14.4% ± 9.8%).    Conclusions  Freeze‐dried cancellous allogeneic bone blocks showed equivalent volumetric shrinkage rates as autogenous bone blocks when used for treating circumscribed bone defects classified as Type‐II to Type‐IV according to the ITI‐treatment guide categories. Therefore, it is not necessary to over‐contour the alveolar ridge when using allogeneic blocks for treating single tooth defects, but to apply the same procedure as when using autogenous blocks.

Comparison of allogeneic and autogenous bone grafts for augmentation of alveolar ridge defects—A 12‐month retrospective radiographic evaluation