TY - JOUR
T1 - Harvesting of Autogenous Bone Graft from the Ascending Mandibular Ramus Compared with the Chin Region
T2 - a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Complications and Donor Site Morbidity
AU - Starch-Jensen, Thomas
AU - Deluiz, Daniel
AU - Deb, Sagar
AU - Bruun, Niels Henrik
AU - Tinoco, Eduardo Muniz Barretto
N1 - Copyright © Starch-Jensen T, Deluiz D, Deb S, Bruun NH, Tinoco EMB. Published in the JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL RESEARCH (http://www.ejomr.org), 30 September 2020.
PY - 2020/12/3
Y1 - 2020/12/3
N2 - Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in complications and donor site morbidity following harvesting of autogenous bone graft from the ascending mandibular ramus compared with the chin region.Material and Methods: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library search in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals was conducted including human studies published in English through June 26, 2020. Randomized and controlled trials were included. Outcome measures included pain, infection, mucosal dehiscence, altered sensation or vitality of adjacent tooth/teeth, neurosensory disturbances and patient-reported outcome measures. Risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Results: Ten controlled trials of high-quality fulfilled inclusion criteria. Risk of infection and mucosal dehiscence seems to be comparable with the two treatment modalities. However, harvesting from the chin seems to be associated with increased risk of pain, altered sensation or loss of tooth vitality, and neurosensory disturbances. Willingness to undergo the same treatment again was reported with both treatment modalities, but significant higher satisfaction, lower discomfort and acceptance of the surgical procedure was reported following harvesting from the ascending mandibular ramus.Conclusions: The hypothesis was rejected due to higher prevalence and severity of complications and donor site morbidity following harvesting of autogenous bone graft from the chin region. Dissimilar evaluation methods and various methodological confounding factors posed serious restrictions for literature review in a quantitative systematic manner. Conclusions drawn from results of this systematic review should therefore be interpreted with caution.
AB - Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in complications and donor site morbidity following harvesting of autogenous bone graft from the ascending mandibular ramus compared with the chin region.Material and Methods: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library search in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals was conducted including human studies published in English through June 26, 2020. Randomized and controlled trials were included. Outcome measures included pain, infection, mucosal dehiscence, altered sensation or vitality of adjacent tooth/teeth, neurosensory disturbances and patient-reported outcome measures. Risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Results: Ten controlled trials of high-quality fulfilled inclusion criteria. Risk of infection and mucosal dehiscence seems to be comparable with the two treatment modalities. However, harvesting from the chin seems to be associated with increased risk of pain, altered sensation or loss of tooth vitality, and neurosensory disturbances. Willingness to undergo the same treatment again was reported with both treatment modalities, but significant higher satisfaction, lower discomfort and acceptance of the surgical procedure was reported following harvesting from the ascending mandibular ramus.Conclusions: The hypothesis was rejected due to higher prevalence and severity of complications and donor site morbidity following harvesting of autogenous bone graft from the chin region. Dissimilar evaluation methods and various methodological confounding factors posed serious restrictions for literature review in a quantitative systematic manner. Conclusions drawn from results of this systematic review should therefore be interpreted with caution.
U2 - 10.5037/jomr.2020.11301
DO - 10.5037/jomr.2020.11301
M3 - Review article
C2 - 33262880
SN - 2029-283X
VL - 11
JO - eJournal of Oral And Maxillofacial Research
JF - eJournal of Oral And Maxillofacial Research
IS - 3
M1 - e1
ER -