<clinical_study>
  <!-- This xml conforms to an XML Schema at:
    https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/html/images/info/public.xsd -->
  <required_header>
    <download_date>ClinicalTrials.gov processed this data on September 20, 2023</download_date>
    <link_text>Link to the current ClinicalTrials.gov record.</link_text>
    <url>https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04462575</url>
  </required_header>
  <id_info>
    <org_study_id>OMFS - (3-3-14)</org_study_id>
    <nct_id>NCT04462575</nct_id>
  </id_info>
  <brief_title>Reconstruction of Atrophic Maxillary Ridges Using Mandibular Blocks With and Without Coverage Using Collagen Membrane</brief_title>
  <official_title>Reconstruction of Horizontally Deficient Atrophic Maxillary Ridges Using Mandibular Blocks With and Without Coverage Using Collagen Membrane</official_title>
  <sponsors>
    <lead_sponsor>
      <agency>Cairo University</agency>
      <agency_class>Other</agency_class>
    </lead_sponsor>
  </sponsors>
  <source>Cairo University</source>
  <oversight_info>
    <has_dmc>No</has_dmc>
    <is_fda_regulated_drug>No</is_fda_regulated_drug>
    <is_fda_regulated_device>No</is_fda_regulated_device>
  </oversight_info>
  <brief_summary>
    <textblock>
      Is the use of collagen membrane on top of particulate bone mixture covered by onlay bone&#xD;
      block in Maxilla better than the use of mixture of particulate bone covered by onlay bone&#xD;
      block without the use of collagen membrane, in terms of bone quality and bone quantity?&#xD;
    </textblock>
  </brief_summary>
  <detailed_description>
    <textblock>
      Soft tissue dehiscence could result due to flap irritation as a result of, closure under&#xD;
      tension, intraoperative or postoperative recipient site infection, postoperative edema, which&#xD;
      in turns compromises stability of onlay bone blocks thus osseintegration of bone block. Any&#xD;
      attempt of bone recontouring and resuturing fails since there is no vascular bed. Ideal&#xD;
      requirements of barrier membranes are, they should be biological compatible, they must act as&#xD;
      a barrier membrane, unwanted fibroblasts should be hindered from entrance while allowing&#xD;
      diffusion of nutrients, tissue integration (biological adhesion), tissues should be able to&#xD;
      grow into the membrane but not through it. Space maintainer, it should be sufficiently stiff,&#xD;
      so as not to collapse into the underlying particulate bone under the pressure of soft tissue&#xD;
      and it should be ease in its manipulation, adaptation and handling, as for example, collagen&#xD;
      membrane. Some types of collagen membrane, contain some degrees of stretchability.&#xD;
    </textblock>
  </detailed_description>
  <overall_status>Unknown status</overall_status>
  <last_known_status>Recruiting</last_known_status>
  <start_date type="Actual">January 21, 2020</start_date>
  <completion_date type="Anticipated">April 30, 2021</completion_date>
  <primary_completion_date type="Anticipated">November 30, 2020</primary_completion_date>
  <phase>N/A</phase>
  <study_type>Interventional</study_type>
  <has_expanded_access>No</has_expanded_access>
  <study_design_info>
    <allocation>Randomized</allocation>
    <intervention_model>Parallel Assignment</intervention_model>
    <primary_purpose>Treatment</primary_purpose>
    <masking>Single (Participant)</masking>
  </study_design_info>
  <primary_outcome>
    <measure>Quantity of bone gain.</measure>
    <time_frame>after 5 months from ridge augmentation.</time_frame>
    <description>Measured using linear measurements from Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) in millimeters (mm).</description>
  </primary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Bone Quality.</measure>
    <time_frame>after 5 months from ridge augmentation.</time_frame>
    <description>Measured using Image Analyser Computer System using Histomorphometric method (area percent micrometer square) and optical density</description>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <number_of_arms>2</number_of_arms>
  <enrollment type="Anticipated">26</enrollment>
  <condition>Bone Augmentation</condition>
  <arm_group>
    <arm_group_label>Onlay bone block covered using collagen membrane</arm_group_label>
    <arm_group_type>Experimental</arm_group_type>
    <description>The onlay bone block (harvested from mandibular intra oral sites) on top of a mixture of particulate autogenous bone and particulate xenogenic bone (assembly going to be fixed by at least 2 micro screws of diameter 1.5 mms and length 13 mms, to avoid micro movements of onlay bone block) covered by collagen membrane, stabilized by resorbable suture and fixed by tacs.</description>
  </arm_group>
  <arm_group>
    <arm_group_label>Onlay bone block without collagen membrane</arm_group_label>
    <arm_group_type>Active Comparator</arm_group_type>
    <description>The onlay bone block (harvested from mandibular intra oral sites) on top of a mixture of particulate autogenous bone and particulate xenogenic bone (assembly going to be fixed by at least 2 micro screws of diameter 1.5 mms and length 13 mms, to avoid micro movements of onlay bone block).</description>
  </arm_group>
  <intervention>
    <intervention_type>Procedure</intervention_type>
    <intervention_name>Onlay bone block covered using collagen membrane</intervention_name>
    <description>The ratio is 40% of xenogenic bone particles (low resorption rate) to 60% of autogenous bone particles (contains viable cells) to be placed in recipient decorticated site and covered by onlay bone block..</description>
    <arm_group_label>Onlay bone block covered using collagen membrane</arm_group_label>
  </intervention>
  <intervention>
    <intervention_type>Procedure</intervention_type>
    <intervention_name>Onlay bone block without collagen membrane</intervention_name>
    <description>Onlay bone block without collagen membrane</description>
    <arm_group_label>Onlay bone block without collagen membrane</arm_group_label>
  </intervention>
  <eligibility>
    <criteria>
      <textblock>
        Inclusion Criteria:&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Patients with maxillary residual alveolar bone height not less than 8 mm.&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Alveolar bone width from less than or equal 5 mm.&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Both sexes.&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  At least missing single tooth.&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Previous Failed Implants.&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Previous Failed Grafting.&#xD;
&#xD;
        Exclusion Criteria:&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Heavy smokers more than 20 cigarettes per day.&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Patients with alcohol abuse&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Patients with narcotic abuse.&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Patients with bone disease that may affect normal healing, example;&#xD;
             hyperparathyroidism.&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Patients had radiotherapy and chemotherapy in head and neck.&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Patients had neoplasms in sites to be grafted. 18&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Patients with Metabolic diseases uncontrolled diabetic patients, Glycated hemoglobin&#xD;
             (Hb A1c) more than 7 mg\dl.&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Pregnant females.&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Patients with Para functional habits, apprehensive and non-cooperative.&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Bone pathology related to the site to be grafted.&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Psychological problems, stress situation (socially or professionally), emotional&#xD;
             instability, and unrealistic patients' expectations.&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Intraoral soft and hard tissue pathology.&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Systemic condition that contraindicate implant placement.&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Under the age of 18 years.&#xD;
      </textblock>
    </criteria>
    <gender>All</gender>
    <minimum_age>18 Years</minimum_age>
    <maximum_age>N/A</maximum_age>
    <healthy_volunteers>Accepts Healthy Volunteers</healthy_volunteers>
  </eligibility>
  <overall_contact>
    <last_name>Niveen A. Askar, Professor</last_name>
    <phone>+201001558769</phone>
    <phone_ext>+20</phone_ext>
    <email>niveen.askar@dentistry.cu.edu.eg</email>
  </overall_contact>
  <overall_contact_backup>
    <last_name>Hesham A. Fattouh, Professor</last_name>
    <phone>+201154198000</phone>
    <phone_ext>+20</phone_ext>
    <email>hesham.fattouh@dentistry.cu.edu.eg</email>
  </overall_contact_backup>
  <location>
    <facility>
      <name>Al Kasr Al Ainy University</name>
      <address>
        <city>Cairo</city>
        <zip>11865</zip>
        <country>Egypt</country>
      </address>
    </facility>
    <status>Recruiting</status>
    <contact>
      <last_name>Niveen A. Askar, Professor</last_name>
      <phone>+201001558769</phone>
      <phone_ext>+20</phone_ext>
      <email>niveen.askar@dentistry.cu.edu.eg</email>
    </contact>
    <contact_backup>
      <last_name>Hesham A. Fattouh, Professor</last_name>
      <phone>+201154198000</phone>
      <phone_ext>+20</phone_ext>
      <email>hesham.fattouh@dentistry.cu.edu.eg</email>
    </contact_backup>
  </location>
  <location_countries>
    <country>Egypt</country>
  </location_countries>
  <reference>
    <citation>Hammerle CH, Jung RE. Bone augmentation by means of barrier membranes. Periodontol 2000. 2003;33:36-53. doi: 10.1046/j.0906-6713.2003.03304.x. No abstract available.</citation>
    <PMID>12950840</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Cash and Alex: 20 years of guided bone regeneration in implant dentistry, 2nd ed. (2009).</citation>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Urban IA, Nagursky H, Lozada JL. Horizontal ridge augmentation with a resorbable membrane and particulated autogenous bone with or without anorganic bovine bone-derived mineral: a prospective case series in 22 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Mar-Apr;26(2):404-14.</citation>
    <PMID>21483894</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Urban IA, Nagursky H, Lozada JL, Nagy K. Horizontal ridge augmentation with a collagen membrane and a combination of particulated autogenous bone and anorganic bovine bone-derived mineral: a prospective case series in 25 patients. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2013 May-Jun;33(3):299-307. doi: 10.11607/prd.1407.</citation>
    <PMID>23593623</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Pellegrino G, Lizio G, Corinaldesi G, Marchetti C. Titanium Mesh Technique in Rehabilitation of Totally Edentulous Atrophic Maxillae: A Retrospective Case Series. J Periodontol. 2016 May;87(5):519-28. doi: 10.1902/jop.2016.150432. Epub 2016 Jan 12.</citation>
    <PMID>26759078</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Polis-Yanes C, Cadenas-Sebastian C, Gual-Vaques P, Ayuso-Montero R, Mari-Roig A, Lopez-Lopez J. Guided Bone Regeneration of an Atrophic Maxilla Using Heterologous Cortical Lamina. Case Rep Dent. 2019 Jun 11;2019:5216362. doi: 10.1155/2019/5216362. eCollection 2019.</citation>
    <PMID>31308978</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Jensen J, Sindet-Pedersen S. Autogenous mandibular bone grafts and osseointegrated implants for reconstruction of the severely atrophied maxilla: a preliminary report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1991 Dec;49(12):1277-87. doi: 10.1016/0278-2391(91)90303-4.</citation>
    <PMID>1955919</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Misch CM. Comparison of intraoral donor sites for onlay grafting prior to implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997 Nov-Dec;12(6):767-76.</citation>
    <PMID>9425757</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Montazem A, Valauri DV, St-Hilaire H, Buchbinder D. The mandibular symphysis as a donor site in maxillofacial bone grafting: a quantitative anatomic study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000 Dec;58(12):1368-71. doi: 10.1053/joms.2000.18268.</citation>
    <PMID>11117684</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Gungormus M, Yavuz MS. The ascending ramus of the mandible as a donor site in maxillofacial bone grafting. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002 Nov;60(11):1316-8. doi: 10.1053/joms.2002.35731.</citation>
    <PMID>12420267</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Clavero J, Lundgren S. Ramus or chin grafts for maxillary sinus inlay and local onlay augmentation: comparison of donor site morbidity and complications. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5(3):154-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00197.x.</citation>
    <PMID>14575631</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Pourabbas R, Nezafati S. Clinical results of localized alveolar ridge augmentation with bone grafts harvested from symphysis in comparison with ramus. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2007 Spring;1(1):7-12. doi: 10.5681/joddd.2007.002. Epub 2007 Jun 10.</citation>
    <PMID>23277827</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Acocella A, Bertolai R, Colafranceschi M, Sacco R. Clinical, histological and histomorphometric evaluation of the healing of mandibular ramus bone block grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation before implant placement. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2010 Apr;38(3):222-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2009.07.004. Epub 2009 Aug 3.</citation>
    <PMID>19648020</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Spin-Neto R, Landazuri Del Barrio RA, Pereira LA, Marcantonio RA, Marcantonio E, Marcantonio E Jr. Clinical similarities and histological diversity comparing fresh frozen onlay bone blocks allografts and autografts in human maxillary reconstruction. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013 Aug;15(4):490-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00382.x. Epub 2011 Aug 11.</citation>
    <PMID>21834864</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Acocella A, Bertolai R, Ellis E 3rd, Nissan J, Sacco R. Maxillary alveolar ridge reconstruction with monocortical fresh-frozen bone blocks: a clinical, histological and histomorphometric study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012 Sep;40(6):525-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2011.09.004. Epub 2011 Nov 9.</citation>
    <PMID>22075326</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Dasmah A, Thor A, Ekestubbe A, Sennerby L, Rasmusson L. Particulate vs. block bone grafts: three-dimensional changes in graft volume after reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla, a 2-year radiographic follow-up. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012 Dec;40(8):654-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2011.10.032. Epub 2011 Dec 3.</citation>
    <PMID>22137760</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>AlGhamdi AS. Post-surgical complications of symphyseal block graft with and without soft tissue grafting. Saudi Med J. 2013 Jun;34(6):609-15.</citation>
    <PMID>23756926</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Hernandez-Alfaro F, Sancho-Puchades M, Guijarro-Martinez R. Total reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla with intraoral bone grafts and biomaterials: a prospective clinical study with cone beam computed tomography validation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013 Jan-Feb;28(1):241-51. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2405.</citation>
    <PMID>23377071</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Monje A, Monje F, Chan HL, Suarez F, Villanueva-Alcojol L, Garcia-Nogales A, Wang HL. Comparison of microstructures between block grafts from the mandibular ramus and calvarium for horizontal bone augmentation of the maxilla: a case series study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2013 Nov-Dec;33(6):e153-61. doi: 10.11607/prd.1664.</citation>
    <PMID>24116370</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Aloy-Prosper A, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Penarrocha-Diago M, Penarrocha-Diago M. The outcome of intraoral onlay block bone grafts on alveolar ridge augmentations: a systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015 Mar 1;20(2):e251-8. doi: 10.4317/medoral.20194.</citation>
    <PMID>25662543</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Reininger D, Cobo-Vazquez C, Monteserin-Matesanz M, Lopez-Quiles J. Complications in the use of the mandibular body, ramus and symphysis as donor sites in bone graft surgery. A systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016 Mar 1;21(2):e241-9. doi: 10.4317/medoral.20938.</citation>
    <PMID>26827063</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Khoury F: Augmentation of severe bony defects with intraoral bone grafts: biological approach and long-term results J Oral Maxillo Fac Surg 2017Volume 46, Supplement 1, Pages 26-27.</citation>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Claudino M, Julio C L, Luis E M, Bernardo M, Fernando G, tomographic evaluation of atrophic maxilla rehabilitated with autogenous and xenogeneic block grafts. Journal of Research in Dentistry 2017, 4(4):112-117.</citation>
  </reference>
  <verification_date>July 2020</verification_date>
  <study_first_submitted>June 28, 2020</study_first_submitted>
  <study_first_submitted_qc>July 7, 2020</study_first_submitted_qc>
  <study_first_posted type="Actual">July 8, 2020</study_first_posted>
  <last_update_submitted>July 7, 2020</last_update_submitted>
  <last_update_submitted_qc>July 7, 2020</last_update_submitted_qc>
  <last_update_posted type="Actual">July 8, 2020</last_update_posted>
  <responsible_party>
    <responsible_party_type>Principal Investigator</responsible_party_type>
    <investigator_affiliation>Cairo University</investigator_affiliation>
    <investigator_full_name>Mohannad Ahmed Ismail</investigator_full_name>
    <investigator_title>Principal Investigator</investigator_title>
  </responsible_party>
  <condition_browse>
    <!-- CAUTION:  The following MeSH terms are assigned with an imperfect algorithm            -->
    <mesh_term>Atrophy</mesh_term>
  </condition_browse>
  <patient_data>
    <sharing_ipd>No</sharing_ipd>
  </patient_data>
  <!-- Results have not yet been posted for this study                                          -->
</clinical_study>


download date: ClinicalTrials.gov processed this data on September 20, 2023
link text: Link to the current ClinicalTrials.gov record.
url: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04462575
org study id: OMFS - (3-3-14)
nct id: NCT04462575
lead sponsor: 
has dmc: No
is fda regulated drug: No
is fda regulated device: No
Is the use of collagen membrane on top of particulate bone mixture covered by onlay bone
      block in Maxilla better than the use of mixture of particulate bone covered by onlay bone
      block without the use of collagen membrane, in terms of bone quality and bone quantity?
Soft tissue dehiscence could result due to flap irritation as a result of, closure under
      tension, intraoperative or postoperative recipient site infection, postoperative edema, which
      in turns compromises stability of onlay bone blocks thus osseintegration of bone block. Any
      attempt of bone recontouring and resuturing fails since there is no vascular bed. Ideal
      requirements of barrier membranes are, they should be biological compatible, they must act as
      a barrier membrane, unwanted fibroblasts should be hindered from entrance while allowing
      diffusion of nutrients, tissue integration (biological adhesion), tissues should be able to
      grow into the membrane but not through it. Space maintainer, it should be sufficiently stiff,
      so as not to collapse into the underlying particulate bone under the pressure of soft tissue
      and it should be ease in its manipulation, adaptation and handling, as for example, collagen
      membrane. Some types of collagen membrane, contain some degrees of stretchability.
allocation: Randomized
intervention model: Parallel Assignment
primary purpose: Treatment
masking: Single (Participant)
measure: Quantity of bone gain.
time frame: after 5 months from ridge augmentation.
description: Measured using linear measurements from Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) in millimeters (mm).
measure: Bone Quality.
time frame: after 5 months from ridge augmentation.
description: Measured using Image Analyser Computer System using Histomorphometric method (area percent micrometer square) and optical density
arm group label: Onlay bone block covered using collagen membrane
arm group type: Experimental
description: The onlay bone block (harvested from mandibular intra oral sites) on top of a mixture of particulate autogenous bone and particulate xenogenic bone (assembly going to be fixed by at least 2 micro screws of diameter 1.5 mms and length 13 mms, to avoid micro movements of onlay bone block) covered by collagen membrane, stabilized by resorbable suture and fixed by tacs.
arm group label: Onlay bone block without collagen membrane
arm group type: Active Comparator
description: The onlay bone block (harvested from mandibular intra oral sites) on top of a mixture of particulate autogenous bone and particulate xenogenic bone (assembly going to be fixed by at least 2 micro screws of diameter 1.5 mms and length 13 mms, to avoid micro movements of onlay bone block).
intervention type: Procedure
intervention name: Onlay bone block covered using collagen membrane
description: The ratio is 40% of xenogenic bone particles (low resorption rate) to 60% of autogenous bone particles (contains viable cells) to be placed in recipient decorticated site and covered by onlay bone block..
arm group label: Onlay bone block covered using collagen membrane
intervention type: Procedure
intervention name: Onlay bone block without collagen membrane
description: Onlay bone block without collagen membrane
arm group label: Onlay bone block without collagen membrane
criteria: 
gender: All
minimum age: 18 Years
maximum age: N/A
healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
last name: Niveen A. Askar, Professor
phone: +201001558769
phone ext: +20
email: niveen.askar@dentistry.cu.edu.eg
last name: Hesham A. Fattouh, Professor
phone: +201154198000
phone ext: +20
email: hesham.fattouh@dentistry.cu.edu.eg
facility: 
status: Recruiting
contact: 
contact backup: 
country: Egypt
citation: Hammerle CH, Jung RE. Bone augmentation by means of barrier membranes. Periodontol 2000. 2003;33:36-53. doi: 10.1046/j.0906-6713.2003.03304.x. No abstract available.
PMID: 12950840
citation: Cash and Alex: 20 years of guided bone regeneration in implant dentistry, 2nd ed. (2009).
citation: Urban IA, Nagursky H, Lozada JL. Horizontal ridge augmentation with a resorbable membrane and particulated autogenous bone with or without anorganic bovine bone-derived mineral: a prospective case series in 22 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Mar-Apr;26(2):404-14.
PMID: 21483894
citation: Urban IA, Nagursky H, Lozada JL, Nagy K. Horizontal ridge augmentation with a collagen membrane and a combination of particulated autogenous bone and anorganic bovine bone-derived mineral: a prospective case series in 25 patients. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2013 May-Jun;33(3):299-307. doi: 10.11607/prd.1407.
PMID: 23593623
citation: Pellegrino G, Lizio G, Corinaldesi G, Marchetti C. Titanium Mesh Technique in Rehabilitation of Totally Edentulous Atrophic Maxillae: A Retrospective Case Series. J Periodontol. 2016 May;87(5):519-28. doi: 10.1902/jop.2016.150432. Epub 2016 Jan 12.
PMID: 26759078
citation: Polis-Yanes C, Cadenas-Sebastian C, Gual-Vaques P, Ayuso-Montero R, Mari-Roig A, Lopez-Lopez J. Guided Bone Regeneration of an Atrophic Maxilla Using Heterologous Cortical Lamina. Case Rep Dent. 2019 Jun 11;2019:5216362. doi: 10.1155/2019/5216362. eCollection 2019.
PMID: 31308978
citation: Jensen J, Sindet-Pedersen S. Autogenous mandibular bone grafts and osseointegrated implants for reconstruction of the severely atrophied maxilla: a preliminary report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1991 Dec;49(12):1277-87. doi: 10.1016/0278-2391(91)90303-4.
PMID: 1955919
citation: Misch CM. Comparison of intraoral donor sites for onlay grafting prior to implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997 Nov-Dec;12(6):767-76.
PMID: 9425757
citation: Montazem A, Valauri DV, St-Hilaire H, Buchbinder D. The mandibular symphysis as a donor site in maxillofacial bone grafting: a quantitative anatomic study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000 Dec;58(12):1368-71. doi: 10.1053/joms.2000.18268.
PMID: 11117684
citation: Gungormus M, Yavuz MS. The ascending ramus of the mandible as a donor site in maxillofacial bone grafting. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002 Nov;60(11):1316-8. doi: 10.1053/joms.2002.35731.
PMID: 12420267
citation: Clavero J, Lundgren S. Ramus or chin grafts for maxillary sinus inlay and local onlay augmentation: comparison of donor site morbidity and complications. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5(3):154-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00197.x.
PMID: 14575631
citation: Pourabbas R, Nezafati S. Clinical results of localized alveolar ridge augmentation with bone grafts harvested from symphysis in comparison with ramus. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2007 Spring;1(1):7-12. doi: 10.5681/joddd.2007.002. Epub 2007 Jun 10.
PMID: 23277827
citation: Acocella A, Bertolai R, Colafranceschi M, Sacco R. Clinical, histological and histomorphometric evaluation of the healing of mandibular ramus bone block grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation before implant placement. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2010 Apr;38(3):222-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2009.07.004. Epub 2009 Aug 3.
PMID: 19648020
citation: Spin-Neto R, Landazuri Del Barrio RA, Pereira LA, Marcantonio RA, Marcantonio E, Marcantonio E Jr. Clinical similarities and histological diversity comparing fresh frozen onlay bone blocks allografts and autografts in human maxillary reconstruction. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013 Aug;15(4):490-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00382.x. Epub 2011 Aug 11.
PMID: 21834864
citation: Acocella A, Bertolai R, Ellis E 3rd, Nissan J, Sacco R. Maxillary alveolar ridge reconstruction with monocortical fresh-frozen bone blocks: a clinical, histological and histomorphometric study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012 Sep;40(6):525-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2011.09.004. Epub 2011 Nov 9.
PMID: 22075326
citation: Dasmah A, Thor A, Ekestubbe A, Sennerby L, Rasmusson L. Particulate vs. block bone grafts: three-dimensional changes in graft volume after reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla, a 2-year radiographic follow-up. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012 Dec;40(8):654-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2011.10.032. Epub 2011 Dec 3.
PMID: 22137760
citation: AlGhamdi AS. Post-surgical complications of symphyseal block graft with and without soft tissue grafting. Saudi Med J. 2013 Jun;34(6):609-15.
PMID: 23756926
citation: Hernandez-Alfaro F, Sancho-Puchades M, Guijarro-Martinez R. Total reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla with intraoral bone grafts and biomaterials: a prospective clinical study with cone beam computed tomography validation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013 Jan-Feb;28(1):241-51. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2405.
PMID: 23377071
citation: Monje A, Monje F, Chan HL, Suarez F, Villanueva-Alcojol L, Garcia-Nogales A, Wang HL. Comparison of microstructures between block grafts from the mandibular ramus and calvarium for horizontal bone augmentation of the maxilla: a case series study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2013 Nov-Dec;33(6):e153-61. doi: 10.11607/prd.1664.
PMID: 24116370
citation: Aloy-Prosper A, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Penarrocha-Diago M, Penarrocha-Diago M. The outcome of intraoral onlay block bone grafts on alveolar ridge augmentations: a systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015 Mar 1;20(2):e251-8. doi: 10.4317/medoral.20194.
PMID: 25662543
citation: Reininger D, Cobo-Vazquez C, Monteserin-Matesanz M, Lopez-Quiles J. Complications in the use of the mandibular body, ramus and symphysis as donor sites in bone graft surgery. A systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016 Mar 1;21(2):e241-9. doi: 10.4317/medoral.20938.
PMID: 26827063
citation: Khoury F: Augmentation of severe bony defects with intraoral bone grafts: biological approach and long-term results J Oral Maxillo Fac Surg 2017Volume 46, Supplement 1, Pages 26-27.
citation: Claudino M, Julio C L, Luis E M, Bernardo M, Fernando G, tomographic evaluation of atrophic maxilla rehabilitated with autogenous and xenogeneic block grafts. Journal of Research in Dentistry 2017, 4(4):112-117.
responsible party type: Principal Investigator
investigator affiliation: Cairo University
investigator full name: Mohannad Ahmed Ismail
investigator title: Principal Investigator
mesh term: Atrophy
sharing ipd: No