Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · European Journal of General Dentistry
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1800842
Case Report

Autogenous Block Graft with Simultaneous Implant Placement in the Aesthetic Zone: A Case Report

Maudina Dwi Heriasti
1   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
,
Muhammad Aryaditha Yunial
1   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
,
Tri Ardi Mahendra
2   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
,
Vera Julia
1   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
,
Lilies Dwi Sulistyani
1   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
,
Yudy Ardilla Utomo
1   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
› Author Affiliations
Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Osseus defects in the alveolar ridge can occur from trauma events, periodontal disease, and infections. Reconstruction of osseus defects requires bone augmentation, which is a crucial component of dental implant procedures, particularly in the aesthetic zone where the availability of sufficient bone volume can be a challenge. The symphysis block graft is a technique that has gained popularity in recent years for bone augmentation, by harvesting a small section of bone from the mandible. The standard procedure usually takes up to 3 to 6 months of a waiting period for implant placement after a bone graft procedure; however, it is not impossible to simultaneously do the single stage surgery of block graft and implant placement in the aesthetic zone. This article aims to evaluate the outcome of autogenous block graft with simultaneous implant placement procedure in the aesthetic zone in one single visit. A 21-year-old man presented with an edentulous area in the upper front teeth and wanted to get tooth replacements of his missing central and left incisors. The front teeth were avulsed and extracted after a road traffic accident 3 months earlier, and the treatment given was a closed reduction with arch bars for 2 months. The osseus defects in labio-palatal width was reconstructed with a symphysis block graft as the donor and two implants were inserted into the recipient site in a single stage surgery. A single stage surgery involving an autogenous block graft with simultaneous implant placement is an effective technique and can be considered safe with a high survival rate. However, further studies with long-term evaluations need to be conducted to provide more evidence to support this protocol.

Keywords

aesthetics - chin graft - implants - autogenous bone graft


Publication History

Article published online:
17 January 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Starch-Jensen T, Becktor JP. Maxillary alveolar ridge expansion with split-crest technique compared with lateral ridge augmentation with autogenous bone block graft: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2019; 10 (04) e2
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Acocella A, Bertolai R, Colafranceschi M, Sacco R. Clinical, histological and histomorphometric evaluation of the healing of mandibular ramus bone block grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation before implant placement. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2010; 38 (03) 222-230
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Dolanmaz D, Esen A, Yıldırım G, İnan Ö. The use of autogeneous mandibular bone block grafts for reconstruction of alveolar defects. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2015; 5 (01) 71-76
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Ghodpage P, Suroshe A. Mandibular block graft for localised ridge augmentation followed by delayed implant placement: a case report. Cureus 2023; 15 (02) e34881
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Chatelet M, Afota F, Savoldelli C. Review of bone graft and implant survival rate: a comparison between autogenous bone block versus guided bone regeneration. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2022; 123 (02) 222-227
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Restoy-Lozano A, Dominguez-Mompell JL, Infante-Cossio P, Lara-Chao J, Espin-Galvez F, Lopez-Pizarro V. Reconstruction of mandibular vertical defects for dental implants with autogenous bone block grafts using a tunnel approach: clinical study of 50 cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015; 44 (11) 1416-1422
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Windisch P, Molnar B. Harvesting of autogenous grafts for gingival recession coverage. . Clin Dent Rev 2019;3(01):
  • 8 Janjua OS, Qureshi SM, Shaikh MS. et al. Autogenous tooth bone grafts for repair and regeneration of maxillofacial defects: a narrative review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19 (06) 3690
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Sakkas A, Wilde F, Heufelder M, Winter K, Schramm A. Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology-is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures. Int J Implant Dent 2017; 3 (01) 23
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Zhang S, Li X, Qi Y. et al. Comparison of autogenous tooth materials and other bone grafts. Tissue Eng Regen Med 2021; 18 (03) 327-341
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Maiorana C, Ferrario S, Poli PP, Manfredini M. Autogenous chin block grafts in the aesthetic zone: a 20-year follow-up case report. Case Rep Dent 2020; 2020: 6525797
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Starch-Jensen T, Deluiz D, Deb S, Bruun NH, Tinoco EMB. Harvesting of autogenous bone graft from the ascending mandibular ramus compared with the chin region: a systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on complications and donor site morbidity. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2020; 11 (03) e1
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Kim JK, Yoon JO, Baek H. Corticocancellous bone graft vs cancellous bone graft for the management of unstable scaphoid nonunion. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2018; 104 (01) 115-120
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Ma L, Yali H, Guijun L, Dong F. Effectiveness of corticocancellous bone graft in cleft lip and palate patients: a systematic review. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021; 122 (01) 33-38
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Shin SC, Kim NY, Kang HJ, Lee SW, Kim JS. Comparison of corticocancellous bone graft from the anterolateral metaphysis of the distal radius versus iliac crest for the treatment of unstable scaphoid nonunion with humpback deformity. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2024; 25 (01) 20
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Roshan J, Surej Kumar LK, Rahim SN, Adersh GA, Thuruthel MJ, Haris H A. Reconstruction of osseous defect with symphysis block graft for implant placement. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2022; 12 (06) 853-858
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Montazem A, Valauri DV, St-Hilaire H, Buchbinder D. The mandibular symphysis as a donor site in maxillofacial bone grafting: a quantitative anatomic study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000; 58 (12) 1368-1371
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Pikos MA. Mandibular block autografts for alveolar ridge augmentation. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2005; 13 (02) 91-107
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Ma G, Wu C, Shao M. Simultaneous implant placement with autogenous onlay bone grafts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent 2021; 7 (01) 61
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Von Arx T, Buser D. Horizontal ridge augmentation using autogenous block grafts and the guided bone regeneration technique with collagen membranes: a clinical study with 42 patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17 (04) 359-66
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Gulinelli JL, Dutra RA, Marão HF, Simeão SFP, Groli Klein GB, Santos PL. Maxilla reconstruction with autogenous bone block grafts: computed tomography evaluation and implant survival in a 5-year retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 46 (08) 1045-1051
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Chen S, Buser D, Wismeijer D. eds. Ridge Augmentation Procedures in Implant Patients: A Staged Approach. ITI Treatment Guide Series, Vol. 7. Batavia, IL:: Quintessence Publishing Company, Inc.;; 2014
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 23 Penarrocha M, Garcia Mira B. Impact of Implant Macro-Desings on Osseointegration in Different Bone Environment View Project Hemostatic Agents in Endodontic Surgery View Project. 2005 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7503686
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Yu SH, Saleh MHA, Wang HL. Simultaneous or staged lateral ridge augmentation: A clinical guideline on the decision-making process. Periodontol 2000 2023; 93 (01) 107-128
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar