A Comparative Volumetric Study of Symphysis Donor Defects, Unfilled or Filled with Bone Substitute

Devorah Schwartz-Arad*, Paolo Toti, Liran Levin, Amir Laviv, Franco Guidetti, Ludovico Sbordone

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Objectives: Background Intraoral autogenous bone grafts are a convenient source of bone in reconstruction of the residual ridge before dental implant placement. Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate bone volume of symphysis donor defects filled with bone substitute compared with unfilled symphysis donor defects. Patients, Materials and Methods: The study included 26 patients who underwent either alveolar ridge reconstruction or maxillary sinus elevation. Two groups were studied: symphyseal donor defects filled with bone substitute and unfilled symphyseal donor defects. Pre- and postoperative volumetric variables were determined using computed tomography scans and the software program SimPlant® (Materialise Dental Italia, Roma, Italy). Results: At 6 months postsurgery, the filled donor defects exhibited a significant increase in bone volume compared with unfilled donor defects (97.7% and 73.4%, respectively). At 18 months postsurgery, volume of unfilled donor defects was reevaluated with no significant increase in bone volume. Conclusions: Six months following block harvesting procedure, filled donor defects maintained bone volume, while unfilled donor sites generated defects that cannot achieve full regeneration; even not 18 months postblock harvesting.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)684-691
Number of pages8
JournalClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
Issue number5
StatePublished - Oct 2013
Externally publishedYes


  • Autogenous bone graft
  • Bone substitute
  • Dental implants
  • Donor site
  • Harvesting
  • Mandibular symphysis
  • Onlay graft
  • Symphysis revisiting


Dive into the research topics of 'A Comparative Volumetric Study of Symphysis Donor Defects, Unfilled or Filled with Bone Substitute'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this