Autologous bone augmentation, Gold standard, Intraoral bone grafts, Complications, Dental implants, Donor site
Fig. 1. Postoperative complications at the donor and recipient site, N refers to the total number of the donor sites (N = 300), N refers to the total number of the recipient sites (N = 378) : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implant
author: Andreas Sakkas, Frank Wilde, Marcus Heufelder, Karsten Winter, Alexander Schramm | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID
Fig. 1. Postoperative complications at the donor and recipient site, N refers to the total number of the donor sites (N = 300), N refers to the total number of the recipient sites (N = 378)
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [1]
- Abstract : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [2]
- Background : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [1]
- Background : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [2]
- Background : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [3]
- Methods : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [1]
- Methods : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [2]
- Methods : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [3]
- Methods : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [4]
- Methods : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [5]
- Methods : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [6]
- Results : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [1]
- Results : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [2]
- Results : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [3]
- Results : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [5]
- Results : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [6]
- Results : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [7]
- Results : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [8]
- Discussion : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [1]
- Discussion : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [2]
- Discussion : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [3]
- Discussion : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [4]
- Discussion : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [5]
- Discussion : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [6]
- Discussion : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [7]
- Conclusions : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures
- References : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [1]
- References : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [2]
- References : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [3]
- References : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [4]
- References : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [5]
- References : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [6]
- References : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures [7]
- Acknowledgements : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures
- Author information : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures
- Rights and permissions : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures
- About this article : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures
- Table 1 Patient characteristics at the time of augmentation : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures
- Table 2 Donor sites and numbers of bone grafts as well as distribution in patients in this study : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures
- Table 3 Intra- and postoperative complications after autologous bone harvesting : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology—is it still a “gold standard”? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures
- Fig. 1. Postoperative complications at the donor and recipient site, N refers to the total number of the donor sites (N = 300), N refers to the total number of the recipient sites (N = 378) : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implant
- Fig. 2. Survival rate of autologous bone grafts : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implant
- Fig. 3. Surgical outcome after autologous augmentation procedures from different donor sites : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implant
- Fig. 4. Postoperative nerve alterations. Single asterisk, N refers to the total number of the surgical approaches in the mandible (N = 155). Double asterisk, N refers to the total number of the surgical approaches in the maxilla (N = 225) : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implant
- Fig. 5. Survival rate of dental implants after autologous bone augmentation : Autogenous bone grafts in oral implant