Search

Background and Aims: To review the regenerative technologies used in bone regeneration: bone grafts, barrier membranes, bioactive factors and cell therapies. Material and Methods: Four background review publications served to elaborate this consensus report. Results and Conclusions: Biomaterials used as bone grafts must meet specific requirements: biocompatibility, porosity, osteoconductivity, osteoinductivity, surface properties, biodegradability, mechanical properties, angiogenicity, handling and manufacturing processes. Currently used biomaterials have demonstrated advantages and limitations based on the fulfilment of these requirements. Similarly, membranes for guided bone regeneration (GBR) must fulfil specific properties and potential biological mechanisms to improve their clinical applicability. Pre‐clinical and clinical studies have evaluated the added effect of bone morphogenetic proteins (mainly BMP‐2) and autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) when used as bioactive agents to enhance bone regeneration. Three main approaches using cell therapies to enhance bone regeneration have been evaluated: (a) "minimally manipulated" whole tissue fractions; (b) ex vivo expanded "uncommitted" stem/progenitor cells; and (c) ex vivo expanded "committed" bone‐/periosteum‐derived cells. Based on the evidence from clinical trials, transplantation of cells, most commonly whole bone marrow aspirates (BMA) or bone marrow aspirate concentrations (BMAC), in combination with biomaterial scaffolds has demonstrated an additional effect in sinus augmentation and horizontal ridge augmentation, and comparable bone regeneration to autogenous bone in alveolar cleft repair. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Bone augmentation procedures to enable dental implant placement are frequently performed. The remit of this working group was to evaluate the current evidence on the efficacy of regenerative measures for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. Material and Methods: The discussions were based on four systematic reviews focusing on lateral bone augmentation with implant placement at a later stage, vertical bone augmentation, reconstructive treatment of peri‐implantitis associated defects, and long‐term results of lateral window sinus augmentation procedures. Results: A substantial body of evidence supports lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement as a predictable procedure in order to gain sufficient ridge width for implant placement. Also, vertical ridge augmentation procedures were in many studies shown to be effective in treating deficient alveolar ridges to allow for dental implant placement. However, for both procedures the rate of associated complications was high. The adjunctive benefit of reconstructive measures for the treatment of peri‐implantitis‐related bone defects has only been assessed in a few RCTs. Meta‐analyses demonstrated a benefit with regard to radiographic bone gain but not for clinical outcomes. Lateral window sinus floor augmentation was shown to be a reliable procedure in the long term for the partially and fully edentulous maxilla. Conclusions: The evaluated bone augmentation procedures were proven to be effective for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. However, some procedures are demanding and bear a higher risk for post‐operative complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]