Table 4 Assessment parameters and study results
From: Horizontal augmentation techniques in the mandible: a systematic review
Author | Assessment method | Initial horizontal width in mm | Final horizontal width in mm | Horizontal gain in mm | Loss in mm | Bone formation in % | bone graft failure in % | Implant survival in % at last follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Amorfini et al. [101] | Clinical assessment; CBCT scan | – | – | 5.7 | 0.2 | – | 0 | 100 |
Barbu et al. [100] | Clinical assessment, CBCT scan | 3.5 | 8.7 | 5.2 | 4.2 | 100 | ||
Beitlitum et al. [117] | Clinical assessment, CBCT scan | 5.8 ± 0.6 | 10.0 ± 1.4 | 4.2 ± 0.9 | – | 0 | 100/24 mo | |
Di Stefano et al. [104] | Clinical assessment, CT scan, OPG, histology, immunohistochemistry | 3.9 ± 0.1 | 7.1 ± 0.2 | 3.2 | 35 | 0 | 100 | |
Nissan et al. [103] | Clinical assessment; CBCT scan; OPG | – | – | 5.6 ± 1.0 | 0.2 ± 0.2 | – | 20.7 | 95.3/37 mo |
Schwartz-Arad et al. [99] | Clinical assessment; OPG, CT scan | – | – | – | – | – | 3.6 | 98.5/12 mo 92.5/36 mo 77.5/48 mo |
Silva et al. [105] | Clinical, histology, microtomographic morphometry | – | – | 4.6 ± 1.3 | 0.6 | 31.8 | 0 | 96/31.8 mo |
Urban et al. [102] | Clinical assessment; periapical radiographs histomorphometry in 9 sites | 1.9 | 7.2 | 5.3 | 1.1 | 31 | 6.3 | 100 |