Tomographic follow-up of bone regeneration after bone block harvesting from the mandibular ramus

• Published in: International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery Vol. 43; no. 3; pp. 335 - 340
• Main Authors: Diez, G.F, Fontão, F.N.G.K, Bassi, A.P.F, Gama, J.C, Claudino, M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Denmark Elsevier Ltd 01-03-2014
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation - methods; bone regeneration; bone transplantation; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Dentistry; Female; Humans; Male; Mandible - diagnostic imaging; Mandible - transplantation; Maxilla - surgery; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Surgery; Surgical Flaps; Tissue and Organ Harvesting - methods; Transplant Donor Site - diagnostic imaging; Transplantation, Autologous; Treatment Outcome; bone regeneration; cone beam computed tomography; bone transplantation
• ISSN: 0901-5027; 1399-0020
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2013.08.010

Abstract Autogenous bone is still considered the gold standard, and the applicability of autogenous bone grafts is well established. However, the possibility of second harvesting from the same donor region remains unclear. The aim of this study was to perform a prospective evaluation of hard tissue deposition in the mandibular ramus after bone block harvesting using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Twenty-two patients with indications for augmentation procedures using autogenous bone from the mandibular ramus were selected. Three CBCT scans were performed with a tomographic guide before bone harvesting (T1) and at 14 days (T2) and 6 months (T3) after the surgical procedures. Measurements were obtained in 2D (area, mm2 ) and 3D (volume, mm3 ), and were subsequently compared. In the 2D analysis, the mean bone formation rate was 56%, while for the 3D analysis the mean rate was 9.7%. Despite this difference, there was a significant correlation between area and volume measurements. Our findings demonstrated the presence of hard tissue in the mandibular ramus at 6 months after bone harvesting, which suggests that it would be possible to reuse the same region for a second block harvesting. However, the second bone harvesting would involve less bone for transplantation when compared to the first bone harvesting.