Advertisement

Basic Principle in Bone Augmentation

  • Andi Setiawan Budihardja
  • Mimi Kallmann
Chapter

Abstract

The most important factor for the successful treatment with dental implants is the bone that has adequate height, width, and vitality . Some factors can lead to the loss of the bone such as genetic defect, trauma, tumor, and infection. In this situation the clinician must decide the right technique and material for bone reconstruction prior to insertion of dental implants.

Autogenous bone is still considered the gold standard in dental implantology. Combinations of autogenous bone and bone substitute material are now widely used in this field with great number of success. In this chapter principle in bone augmentation including the material of choice, technique, and surgical principle will be discussed.

Keywords

Bone Dental implant Bone grafting 

References

  1. 1.
    Cawood JI, Stoelinga PJ. International research group on reconstructive preprosthetic surgery. Consensus report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000;29:159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cawood JI, Howell RA. A classification of the edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998;17:232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Neukam FW, Hausamen JE, Scheller H. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Implantologie beim älteren Patienten. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z. 1989;44:490.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de-Freitas NR, Lima LB, de-Moura MB, Veloso-Guedes CC, Simamoto-Júnior PC, de-Magalhães D. Bisphosphonate treatment and dental implants: A systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016;21(5):e644–51.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khoury F, Hidajat H. Extensive autogenous bone augmentation and implantation in patients under bisphosphonate treatment: a 15 case series. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2016;36(1):9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen ST, Buser D. Implants in post extraction sites. Literature update. In: Buser D, Belser U, Wismeijer D, editors. ITI treatment guide, vol. 3. Basel: ITI; 2008. p. 9–16.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deporter D, Watson P, Pharoah M, Todescan R, Tomlinson G. Ten year result of a prospective study using porous surfaced dental implants and a mandibular overdenture. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2002;4:183–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fugazotto PA. Shorter implants in clinical practice: rationale and treatments results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;23:487–96.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Misch CE, Steignga J, Barboza E, Misch Dietsh F, Cianciola LJ, Kazor C. Short dental implants in posterior partial edentulism: a multicenter retrospective 6 year case series study. J Periodontol. 2006;77:1340–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feldman S, Boitel N, Weng D, Kohles SS, Stach RM. Five year survival distributions of short length (10 mm or less) machined surface and osseotite implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2004;6:12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buser D, Dula K, Hirt HP, Belser U. Localized ridge augmentation with autograft and barrier membrane. Periodontol. 1999;19:151–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buser D, Dula K, Belser U, Hirt HP, Berthold H. Localized ridge augmentation using guided bone regeneration. Surgical procedure in maxilla. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1993;13:29–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Isbaner J. Membranen in der zahnmedizin. Jahrb Implantol. 2016;2016:277.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andi Setiawan Budihardja
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mimi Kallmann
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of MedicineUniversity Pelita HarapanJakartaIndonesia
  2. 2.Siloam Hospital Lippo VillageJakartaIndonesia
  3. 3.Budihardja Dental Specialist CenterJakartaIndonesia
  4. 4.Private PracticeJakartaIndonesia

Personalised recommendations