The regeneration of bone tissue is the main purpose of most therapies in dental medicine. For bone regeneration, calcium phosphate (CaP)-based substitute materials based on natural (allo- and xenografts) and synthetic origins (alloplastic materials) are applied for guiding the regeneration processes. The optimal bone substitute has to act as a substrate for bone ingrowth into a defect, as well as resorb in the time frame needed for complete regeneration up to the condition of restitution ad integrum. In this context, the modes of action of CaP-based substitute materials have been frequently investigated, where it has been shown that such materials strongly influence regenerative processes such as osteoblast growth or differentiation and also osteoclastic resorption due to different physicochemical properties of the materials. However, the material characteristics needed for the required ratio between new bone tissue formation and material degradation has not been found, until now. The addition of different substances such as collagen or growth factors and also of different cell types has already been tested but did not allow for sufficient or prompt application. Moreover, metals or metal ions are used differently as a basis or as supplement for different materials in the field of bone regeneration. Moreover, it has already been shown that different metal ions are integral components of bone tissue, playing functional roles in the physiological cellular environment as well as in the course of bone healing. The present review focuses on frequently used metals as integral parts of materials designed for bone regeneration, with the aim to provide an overview of currently existing knowledge about the effects of metals in the field of bone regeneration.

The objective of this case report is to introduce a customized CAD/CAM freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) block for its use in Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) procedures for severely deficient maxillary bones. Additionally, a special newly developed remote incision technique is presented to avoid wound dehiscence. The results show optimal integration behavior of the FDBA block after six months and the formation of new vital bone. Thus, the results of the present case report confirm the use of the customized CAD/CAM bone block for augmentation of complex defects in the maxillary aesthetic zone as a successful treatment concept.

Background and Objectives: Preliminary studies emphasize the similar performance of autogenous bone blocks (AUBBs) and allogeneic bone blocks (ALBBs) in pre-implant surgery; however, most of these studies include limited subjects or hold a low level of evidence. The purpose of this review is to test the hypothesis of indifferent implant survival rates (ISRs) in AUBB and ALBB and determine the impact of various material-, surgery- and patient-related confounders and predictors. Materials and Methods: The national library of medicine (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were screened for studies reporting the ISRs of implants placed in AUBB and ALBB with ≥10 participants followed for ≥12 months from January 1995 to November 2021. The review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed via several scoring tools, dependent on the study design. Means of sub-entities were presented as violin plots. Results: An electronic data search resulted in the identification of 9233 articles, of which 100 were included in the quantitative analysis. No significant difference (p = 0.54) was found between the ISR of AUBB (96.23 ± 5.27%; range: 75% to 100%; 2195 subjects, 6861 implants) and that of ALBB (97.66 ± 2.68%; range: 90.1% to 100%; 1202 subjects, 3434 implants). The ISR in AUBB was increased in blocks from intraoral as compared to extraoral donor sites (p = 0.0003), partially edentulous as compared to totally edentulous (p = 0.0002), as well as in patients younger than 45 as compared to those older (p = 0.044), cortical as compared to cortico-cancellous blocks (p = 0.005) and in delayed implantations within three months as compared to immediate implantations (p = 0.018). The ISR of ALBB was significantly increased in processed as compared to fresh-frozen ALBB (p = 0.004), but also in horizontal as compared to vertical augmentations (p = 0.009). Conclusions: The present findings widely emphasize the feasibility of achieving similar ISRs with AUBB and ALBB applied for pre-implant bone grafting. ISRs were negatively affected in sub-entities linked to more extensive augmentation procedures such as bone donor site and dentition status. The inclusion and pooling of literature with a low level of evidence, the absence of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing AUBB and ALBB and the limited count of comparative studies with short follow-ups increases the risk of bias and complicates data interpretation. Consequently, further long-term comparative studies are needed.