The split crest technique and dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to determine: (1) the expected bone volume gain with the split crest technique, and (2) how the use of surgical instruments affects the performance of this technique. An electronic search was performed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Twenty-seven articles met the selection criteria and were subjected to meta-analysis of bone gain and survival rate; 17 reported the use of conventional surgical instruments and nine the use of surgical ultrasound. A total of 4115 implants were installed in 1732 patients (average patient age 52 years). The overall implant survival rate was 97%. The average bone gain in studies that used conventional surgical instruments was 3.61 mm, while this was 3.69 mm in those that used ultrasound. Only two studies presented a low risk of bias. The greatest problems identified during the qualitative analysis were related to random selection of the population and the absence of statistical analysis. The split crest technique appears to be a promising and effective technique to gain bone width, regardless of the surgical instruments used. Considering the diversity of the studies and implant types, no definitive recommendations can be made, especially with regard to the best instruments and implant design to be used.

Oral rehabilitation in areas where bone width is insufficient is a complex issue. Insufficient bone width is common for edentulous patients, especially when alveolar fracturing occurs during dental extraction. When the bone loss results from a maxillofacial trauma, vertical dental root fracture, or from extensive periodontal/endodontic diseases, the effects are even more severe. These factors might result in insufficient vertical and horizontal support to install dental implants and may impair, or even limit, the options for prosthetic rehabilitation. In such cases, bone volume improvement has to be considered an effective alternative treatment.

Techniques that have been used successfully for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge bone volume include the use of onlay grafts harvested from the iliac crest, maxillary tuberosity, mandibular symphysis, or external oblique line. However, these procedures demand a second surgical site, which results in additional postoperative morbidity. Also, the receptor site often needs a healing time of 6–12 months before implant placement, and the risk of non-osseous integration of autogenous bone blocks is high. Guided bone regeneration (GBR) and osteogenic distraction are also adopted to improve the bone volume and enable fixed prosthetic rehabilitation. These two techniques also present potential disadvantages, such as tissue dehiscence, displacement or collapse of the membrane, inappropriate distraction vector, unpredictable bone resorption, and a delay prior to installation of the implants.

In 1986, Nentwig reported a bone crest division technique that simultaneously allowed the expansion of the alveolar crest and implant insertion. The surgical procedure divides the cortical bone crests, moving them to create an opening in the centre, which is then mainly occupied by simultaneously inserted implants. The remaining areas can be filled with biomaterials, autologous grafts, or autologous biological therapies such as plasma rich in growth factors. The main benefit of the split crest technique (SCT) is the simple, quick, and predictable way in which the alveolar atrophic crest can be expanded. This permits the use of bone grafts without the need for a second surgical site, thereby minimizing the risk of oedema, nerve injury, and pain.

Several adaptations and modifications of the SCT have been reported. Among these is the adoption of rotary and oscillatory instruments and, more recently, surgical ultrasound (US). The latter allows precise, clean, and smooth cutting of the bone tissue, with excellent visibility. It is also believed that the use of US could minimize the risk of complete fracture of the crests, which ultimately results in bone necrosis and implant loss. Complete fracturing of the cortical crest is more likely along the edges where the remaining bone is highly mineralized. The SCT is recommended in cases where the height of the alveolar ridge is acceptable, but its width is insufficient. Conversely, SCT should be contraindicated in those with atrophic ridges that lack elasticity due to a reduced volume of medullary bone tissue.

So far, two systematic reviews have investigated this technique for surgical division of the alveolar crest. Bassetti et al. evaluated the clinical, radiographic, and histological results of this technique in association with GBR. This review focused mainly on the crest bone loss, measured on the mesial and distal surfaces of the implant before or after loading. The review by Elnayef et al. focused on estimating the amount of horizontal bone gain promoted by SCT, in conjunction with implant placement, taking into account the flap type (partial-thickness flap or full-thickness flap). In addition, findings related to the role of the grafting material and/or membrane, intraoperative and postoperative biological complications, and the implant survival rate were also described. Complementary to these, Garcez-Filho et al. briefly presented an overview of the main clinical studies evaluating the SCT technique published from 1992 to 2007. These authors strongly believe that the SCT concept has raised great interest in recent years, especially due to the reduction in morbidity (no bone harvesting from a second surgical site, no risk of membrane exposure, and low risk of graft loss).

The present systematic review further examines the impact of the SCT on the bone volume obtained after separation of the cortical crests, and includes studies with implant installation simultaneous and posterior to the crest split. This review expands on the previous systematic reviews by (1) providing the most extensive quantitative assessment of bone volume gain to date, and (2) discussing the influence of methodological aspects on the gain in bone thickness. The latter was done specifically by investigating factors such as the type of surgical instrument used to separate the alveolar ridge. It was hypothesized that the use of surgical US instruments would be beneficial in terms of bone thickness gain and maintaining the peri-implant bone tissue compared to conventional instruments, because of the lower risk of surgical trauma.

Materials and methods

This systematic review followed the protocol for systematic reviews and meta-analyses outlined in the PRISMA statement. Two independent researchers (FF and JW) conducted an electronic search in the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. The following medical subject heading (MeSH) terms indexed by MEDLINE were used: “split crest” OR “split-crest” OR “ridge expansions” OR “edentulous ridge expansion” AND “dental implants”. The search included articles published until October 2015. All articles were considered for review, regardless of language or publication year. The identification of duplicate articles in the databases was performed using EndNote Web reference manager software (Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia, PA, USA). An overview of the selection procedure is shown in Fig. 1 .

Fig. 1
Flowchart of the systematic review.

A well-structured question in the PICO format was formulated to direct the literature search (P: population or problem of interest, I: intervention under investigation, C: comparison of interest, O: outcomes considered most important to measure results). The PICO strategy for the construction of the research question and evidence search was structured as follows: What is the expected increase in bone volume after the separation of cortical bone with crests of low thickness, but with sufficient height for regular implant placement? Is this volume increase related to the surgical instruments used for osteotomy?

After an independent reading of all titles and abstracts by two authors (FF and JW), the selected articles were read in full and included or excluded according to the criteria previously determined by the two reviewers. Articles that did not fully describe the inclusion criteria were retained at this stage. In addition, the reference lists of all manuscripts were hand-searched to check for additional papers not found through the database searches. Disagreements between the authors were resolved by consensus in a joint session. The assessment of the full-text articles retrieved after the initial screening was performed independently by the same two reviewers. Predefined data collection worksheets were used for the assessment of each selected publication.

Inclusion criteria encompassed the following: accessible articles applying the ‘split crest’ technique (surgical division of the alveolar ridge) in the maxilla, mandible, or both; study including at least five patients treated with the SCT; implant installation simultaneous or subsequent to the expansion of the alveolar crest. Outcome variables including the success rate, survival rate, and gain and/or loss of bone obtained after surgery (expressed as a percentage or in millimetres) were collected. Literature review articles were excluded, as were case reports ( n < 5), studies on cadavers or animals, laboratory studies, and articles that did not apply or evaluate the conventional surgical division of the alveolar crest.

The assessment of methodological quality for risk of bias was applied in order to check the strength of the scientific evidence in clinical decision-making. The classification of the polarization potential risk for each study was based on the criteria adopted by Clementini et al., namely random sample selection, definition of inclusion and exclusion criteria, reporting and monitoring the implant loss, validated measurements, and statistical analysis. Studies that included all of these criteria were classified as having a low risk of bias, those that did not include one of the criteria were classified as having a moderate risk of bias, and the remaining studies were assigned a high risk of bias.

The main characteristics of the studies and populations included in the systematic review are reported in Table 1 . The following information was collected from each of the included studies: study design, follow-up period, city/country and sample selection period, number of patients and implants, average age, type of implant, region in which they were installed, and the initial thickness of the alveolar ridge. The methodological characteristics of the surgical techniques used are presented in Table 2 ; these cover the intervention performed, instruments used to perform the osteotomy, associated biomaterials, evaluation methods, success criteria, bone width and height variation (millimetres), success rate, and implant survival rate.

Table 1
Characteristics of the studies included and their respective sample populations.
Study Design
Follow-up
Location and country
Sample selection period
Number of patients (M/F)/implants Average age (range) (years) Jaw
Region
Initial thickness of ridge (mm)
Crespi et al. 2015 Prospective
2 years
Department of Dentistry, San Raffaele Hospital, Italy
January 2010 to May 2011
36 (13/23)/93 57.1 (36–71) Max/Mnd
Ant/Post
3.0 ± 0.8 (2.5–3.8)
Scarano et al. 2015 Prospective
3 months
University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy 32 (9/23)/64 57 (53–68) Mnd
Post
3.1 ± 0.6 (2.3–4.1)
Santagata et al. 2015 Prospective
3 years
University Hospital (AOU), Second University Naples, Italy
January to November 2009
13 (6/7)/33 49.4 (32–68) Max
Ant/Post
4.7 (3.5–7)
Tang et al. 2015 Retrospective
3 years
Department of Oral Implants, School of Stomatology, Fourth Military Medical University, China
2004–2009
157 (92/65)/226 36.2 (17–74) Max/Mnd
Ant/Post
≥2.0
Garcez-Filho et al. 2015 Retrospective
10 years
Private practice, Brazil
2000–2002
21 (9/12)/40 55.5 (33–78) Max
Post
3.0–5.0
Abu Tair 2014 Retrospective
3 years
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinic, Israel
2007–2009
13/42 Mnd
Post
2.0–4.0
Shibuya et al. 2014 Retrospective
2 years
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kobe University Hospital, Japan
April 2004 to March 2013
6 (1/5)/14 58.7 (25–71) Mnd
Ant/Post
3.4 (1.6–6.4)
Crespi et al. 2014 Prospective
2 years
Department of Dentistry, San Raffaele Hospital, Italy
2007–2009
46 (13/33)/118 53.8 (31–73) Max/Mnd
Ant/Post
2.0–3.5
Bassetti et al. 2013 Prospective
2 years
School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland
Length: 30 months
7 (2/5)/17 57.9 Max/Mnd
Ant/Post
≥2.0
Anitua et al. 2013 Retrospective
17 months
Private practice, Spain
September 2007 to November 2008
15 (–15)/37 53.6 (19–72) Max/Mnd
Ant/Post
4.3 (1.8–6.2)
Rahpeyma et al. 2013 Prospective
6 months
Dental Research Centre of Mashhad University of Medical Science, Iran 25 (13/12)/82 50.2 (16–78) Max/Mnd
Ant/Post
3.0–4.0
Anitua et al. 2012 Retrospective
19 months
Private practice, Spain
March 2008 to June 2009
6 (1/5)/9 61 (52–72) Max
Ant/Post
4.0 apical (1.5) and 3.0 occlusal (0.6)
Annibali et al. 2012 Retrospective
1 year
University of Rome, Italy
May 2006 to January 2009
5/19 Max/Mnd
Post
4.6 ± 1.3 (2.0–7.0)
Scarano et al. 2011 Prospective
3 months
University of Ferrara and University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy
2007–2009
22 (8/14)/44 59 (54–65) Mnd
Post
1.5–3.0
González-Garcia et al. 2011 Retrospective
2 years
Centre of Implantology and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery CICOM, Spain 8/33 53 (38–69) Max 3.0–4.0
Demetriades et al. 2011 Retrospective
2 years
Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, USA 15 (10/5)/34 Max/Mnd 3.0–5.0
Holtzclaw et al. 2010 Retrospective
6 months
Private practice in Texas and Pennsylvania, USA
2008–2009
13 (7/6)/31 35.2 (22–43) Mnd
Post
3.6 ± 0.8
Sohn et al. 2010 Prospective
3–4 months
Korea 32 (5/27)/84 48 Mnd
Post
2.0–4.0
Blus et al. 2010 Retrospective
3 years
Italy
January 2003 to September 2004
43 (20/23)/180 54.2 (26–82) Max/Mnd
Ant/Post
3.3 ± 0.7 (1.5–5.0)
Jensen et al. 2009 Retrospective
1 year
Private practice, USA
Duration: 2 years
40/81 Max/Mnd
Ant/Post
Danza et al. 2009 Retrospective
1 year
Italy
May 2004 to November 2007
21/21 53 Max/Mnd
Ant/Post
Bravi et al. 2007 Retrospective
10 years
Private practice, Italy
January 1992 to December 2001
734 (233/501)/1715 48.6 (17–86) Max/Mnd
Ant/Post
Blus and Szmukler-Moncler 2006 Prospective
3 years
Italy
January 2001 to May 2004
57 (28/29)/228 50.2 (23–82) Max/Mnd
Ant/Post
3.2 (1.5–5.0)
Ferrigno and Laureti 2005 Prospective
2 years
Private practice, Italy
May 2002 to October 2003
40 (18/22)/82 47.1 (25–64) Max 3.0–5.0
Sethi and Kaus 2000 Prospective
5 years
Centre for Implant and Reconstructive Dentistry, England
1991–1996
150 (72/78)/449 Max
Ant/Post
2.0–4.0
Scipioni et al. 1994 Prospective
5 years
Private practice, Italy 170/329 Max
Ant
Simion et al. 1992 Prospective
6 months
University of Milan, Italy 5 (1/4)/10 53.2 (39–71) Max/Mnd
Ant/Post
1.0–4.0
Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free dental videos. Join our Telegram channel

Dec 14, 2017 | Posted by in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery | Comments Off on The split crest technique and dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

VIDEdental - Online dental courses

Get VIDEdental app for watching clinical videos