Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35218647›Full record

SynthesisMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2022

Intraoral onlay block bone grafts versus cortical tenting technique on alveolar ridge augmentations: a systematic review.

A Aloy-Prósper, E Carramolino-Cuéllar, D Peñarrocha-Oltra, D Soto-Peñaloza, M Peñarrocha-Diago

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07365852 (Accuracy Assessment of Symphyseal Onlay Bone Grafting for 3D Maxillary Ridge Augmentation Using Tooth-supported Patient-specific Surgical Guide Versus Free Hand Technique), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07365852 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Accuracy Assessment of Symphyseal Onlay Bone Grafting for 3D Maxillary Ridge Augmentation Using Tooth-supported Patient-specific Surgical Guide Versus Free Hand Technique: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorCairo UniversityRan2024 to 2025Enrolled30ConditionsAlveolar Bone LossArms3D ridge augmentation using tooth-supported patient-specific guide
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

A Aloy-PrósperClínicas Odontológicas Gascó Oliag 1 46021 - Valencia, Spain amparo.aloyprosper@gmail.com.
E Carramolino-Cuéllar
D Peñarrocha-Oltra
D Soto-Peñaloza
M Peñarrocha-Diago

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo review systematically the bone gain and superficial resorption rate of the onlay block bone grafts versus the cortical tenting technique, as well as secondarily study the postoperative complications, implant survival and success rates, and peri-implant marginal bone loss. MATERIAL AND

methodsFollowing the recommended methods for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA), an electronic search was performed in the PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE and the Cochrane Library of the Cochrane Collaboration (CENTRAL) databases to identify all relevant articles published up to March 2021 on onlay block bone grafts and cortical tenting technique.

resultsEighteen papers complied with the inclusion criteria. In onlay grafts, the vertical bone gain mean was 4.24 mm, and resorption 20.91%; and 4.29 mm in the horizontal augmentation with a resorption of 10.28%. The complication rate was 14.8%. The implant survival and success rates were 100% and 92%; and the mean peri-implant bone loss ranged from 0.6 to 1.26 mm. In cortical tenting technique, the vertical bone gain mean was 6.17 mm and the resorption of 9.99%; and 5.55 mm in the horizontal augmentation with a 6.12% of resorption. The complication rate was 24.6%. The implant survival and success rates were 96.63% and 100%; and the mean peri-implant bone loss ranged from 0.27 to 0.77mm.

conclusionsDespite the limitations, both techniques offer a predictable way to reconstruct atrophic alveolar ridges, though the cortical tenting technique seems to achieve a greater bone gain and a lower surface resorption. Current evidence is still limited due to the inadequate follow-up, lack of information referred to methodological quality and sample attrition.

Indexed as

Alveolar Ridge AugmentationAlveolar ProcessBone TransplantationDental Implantation, EndosseousHumans

Identifiers

PMID35218647
PMCPMC8898581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.