Vertical distraction osteogenesis vs Autogenous onlay bone graft (mandibular ramus): Vertical bone gain
- Population
- Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants
- Intervention
- Vertical distraction osteogenesis
- Comparison
- Autogenous onlay bone graft (mandibular ramus)
- Outcome
- Vertical bone gain
Vertical distraction osteogenesis showed no clear difference in vertical bone gain compared with autogenous onlay bone graft (mandibular ramus); GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Vertical distraction osteogenesis vs Autogenous onlay bone graft (mandibular ramus) Vertical bone gain · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants · Up to 3 years post-loading Vertical distraction osteogenesis showed no clear difference in vertical bone gain compared with autogenous onlay bone graft (mandibular ramus); GRADE not reported. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental… (2009) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD 0.30 [-0.97, 1.57] | 1 study · 17 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2009-06 | Not listed | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Vertical distraction osteogenesis vs Autogenous inlay bone graft (iliac crest) · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.