Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://doi.org/10.25358/openscience-9944
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTunkel, Jochen-
dc.contributor.authorHoffmann, Frederik-
dc.contributor.authorSchmelcher, Yannik-
dc.contributor.authorKloss-Brandstätter, Anita-
dc.contributor.authorKämmerer, Peer W.-
dc.date.accessioned2024-01-23T08:41:54Z-
dc.date.available2024-01-23T08:41:54Z-
dc.date.issued2023-
dc.identifier.urihttps://openscience.ub.uni-mainz.de/handle/20.500.12030/9962-
dc.description.abstractObjectives Autogenous and allogeneic blocks for shell augmentation of the jaw have shown comparable results. This observational clinical study aimed to compare both materials for shell augmentation concerning surgery time and intra- and postoperative complications. Material and methods Bone augmentation with the shell technique using autogenous or allogenous bone was performed in 117 patients with segmental jaw atrophy. The primary study parameter was the surgical time, comparing both materials. Subsequently, intra- and postoperative complications were recorded. Results Allogeneic (n = 60), autogenous (n = 52), or both materials (n = 5) were used. The use of allogeneic material led to a significantly shorter operation time (p < 0.001). A more experienced surgeon needed significantly less time than a less experienced surgeon (p < 0.001). An increasing number of bone shells (p < 0.001), an additional sinus floor elevation, and intraoperative complications also significantly increased the operation time (p = 0.001). Combining allogeneic and autogenous shells (p = 0.02) and simultaneous sinus floor elevation (p = 0.043) significantly impacted intraoperative complications. No correlations were found between the included variables for postoperative complications (all p > 0.05). In total, 229 implants were inserted after a healing time of 4–6 months, with a survival of 99.6% after a mean follow-up duration of 9 months. Conclusions Compared to the autogenous technique, allogeneic shell augmentation has a shorter surgical time and a similar rate of intra- and postoperative complications as autogenous bone. Together with its promising clinical results, this technique can be recommended.de_DE
dc.language.isoengde
dc.rightsCC BY*
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subject.ddc610 Medizinde_DE
dc.subject.ddc610 Medical sciencesen_GB
dc.titleAllogeneic versus autogenous shell technique augmentation procedures : a prospective-observational clinical trial comparing surgical time and complication ratesen_GB
dc.typeZeitschriftenaufsatzde
dc.identifier.doihttp://doi.org/10.25358/openscience-9944-
jgu.type.dinitypearticleen_GB
jgu.type.versionPublished versionde
jgu.type.resourceTextde
jgu.organisation.departmentFB 04 Medizinde
jgu.organisation.number2700-
jgu.organisation.nameJohannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz-
jgu.rights.accessrightsopenAccess-
jgu.journal.titleInternational journal of implant dentistryde
jgu.journal.volume9de
jgu.pages.alternative52de
jgu.publisher.year2023-
jgu.publisher.nameSpringerde
jgu.publisher.placeBerlin u.a.de
jgu.publisher.issn2198-4034de
jgu.organisation.placeMainz-
jgu.subject.ddccode610de
jgu.publisher.doi10.1186/s40729-023-00505-yde
jgu.organisation.rorhttps://ror.org/023b0x485-
jgu.subject.dfgLebenswissenschaftende
Appears in collections:DFG-491381577-G

Files in This Item:
  File Description SizeFormat
Thumbnail
allogeneic_versus_autogenous_-20240119082751597.pdf1.67 MBAdobe PDFView/Open