The influence of vertical ridge augmentation techniques on peri‐implant bone loss: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

• Published in: Clinical implant dentistry and related research 2024-02, Vol.26 (1), p.15-65
• Main Authors: Cucchi, Alessandro, Maiani, Francesco, Franceschi, Debora, Sassano, Michele, Fiorino, Antonino, Urban, Istvan A., Corinaldesi, Giuseppe
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Alveolar Bone Loss - etiology; Alveolar Bone Loss - surgery; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation - methods; Bone growth; Bone healing; Bone loss; Clinical trials; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods; Dental Implants; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - methods; Humans; Long bone; Mechanical loading; Meta-analysis; osseointegrated implants; peri‐implant bone loss; Regeneration; Regeneration (physiology); Systematic review; vertical bone augmentation
• ISSN: 1523-0899; 1708-8208; 1708-8208
• DOI: 10.1111/cid.13282

Introduction The primary aim of this systematic review was to investigate and compare the outcomes of different vertical ridge augmentation (VRA) techniques in relation to peri‐implant bone loss (PBL), after at least 12 months of functional loading. Material and methods The search was conducted to find all the studies about VRA and measurements of PBL with at least 12 months follow‐up. Three pairwise meta‐analysis (MA) was performed to completely evaluate the outcomes. Results A total of 42 studies were included, of which 11 were randomized clinical trials (RCTs). RCTs were available only for guided bone regeneration (GBR), onlay, and inlay techniques. The weighted mean estimate (WME) of PBL value was found to be 1.38 mm (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.10–1.66) after a mean follow‐up of 41.0 ± 27.8 months. GBR, Inlay, Onlay, osteodistraction, and SBB represented in weight 32.9%, 30.6%, 25.0%, 7.6%, and 3.9%, respectively; and their WME (95% CI) were 1.06 (0.87–1.26) mm, 1.72 (1.00–2.43) mm, 1.31 (0.87–1.75) mm, 1.81 (0.87–1.75) mm, and 0.66 (0.55–0.77) mm, respectively. Among the secondary outcomes, the analysis was conducted for vertical bone gain, healing complication rate, surgical complication rate, implant survival, and success rate. Conclusions The primary findings of the meta‐analysis, based on the changes between final and baseline values, showed that the peri‐implant bone loss could be influenced by the type of intervention but there is a need to evaluate in RCTs the behavior of the peri‐implant bone levels after long‐term follow‐up for all techniques.