ArticleMaxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery2023
Comparison of vertical bone resorption following various types of autologous block bone grafts.
Article in Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Customized three-dimensional printed ceramic bone grafts for osseous defects: a prospective randomized study.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Tenting screw (tent pole) technique in vertical and horizontal alveolar ridge augmentations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026Review
- Extra-Articular Distal Tibia Non-Union Treated With Ipsilateral Fibular Strut Graft with Implants In Situ - A Case Report.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Retrospective Radiographic Evaluation of Ridge Dimensional Changes After Vertical Augmentation Using the Novel Wide-Head Tent Pole Screw Technique.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- The Inlay Technique in Alveolar Ridge Augmentation: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Evaluation of peri-implant perfusion in patients who underwent avascular augmentation or microvascular reconstruction using laser Doppler flowmetry and tissue spectrophotometry: a prospective comparative clinical study.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to measure and compare the differences in vertical bone resorption after vertical augmentation using different types of autologous block bone.
methodsData were collected from 38 patients who had undergone vertical ridge augmentation using an autologous block bone before implant insertion. The patients were divided into three groups based on the donor sites: ramus bone (RB), chin bone (CB), and iliac crestal bone (IB).
resultsThe surgical outcome of the augmentation was evaluated at the follow-up periods up to 60 months. In 38 patients, the mean amount of vertical bone gain was 8.36 ± 1.51 mm in the IB group, followed by the RB group (4.17 ± 1.31 mm) and the CB group (3.44 ± 1.08 mm). There is a significant difference in vertical bone resorption between the groups (p < 0.001), and the RB group demonstrated significantly lower resorption than the CB and IB groups (p = 0.011 and p < 0.001, respectively). The most common postoperative complications included neurosensory disturbance in the CB graft and gait disturbance in the IB graft. Out of the 92 implants inserted after augmentation, four implants were lost during the study period, resulting in an implant success rate of 95.65%.
conclusionsThe RB graft might be the most suitable option for vertical augmentation in terms of maintaining postoperative vertical height and reducing morbidity, although the initial gain was greater with the IB graft compared to other block bones.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.