The purpose of this article is to describe a new technique and the anatomic sites for cutting and harvesting bone for grafting applications. A handheld instrument is described that cuts and collects thin shavings of bone from cortical surfaces.
This study included 193 consecutive patients who needed bone augmentation and simultaneous implant placement in the severely atrophic posterior maxilla and in the anterior maxilla with acquired defect of alveolar bone as a result of local trauma. A total of 477 implants were placed. Clinical criteria for evaluation at time of implant exposure included stability in all directions, crestal bone resorption, and any reported pain of discomfort.
There were no failures of the anterior maxilla group, and no signs of bone resorption were noted at the second stage surgery or during the follow-up. During initial and late healing, there was no dehiscence of the soft tissue flaps and no membranes were exposed. Core biopsies typically showed immature, newly formed bone and, on average, 27% to 36% vital bone.
From this research, it appears that excellent implant success rates can be achieved in grafted sinuses or ridges when a locally harvested autogenous bone graft with a ribbon geometry is used.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2016.
All research outputs
#12,344,266
of 34,360,257 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery (02782391)
#1,013
of 3,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,572
of 213,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery (02782391)
#5
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,360,257 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,626 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 213,399 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
