Objectives: Many procedures require the use of bone grafts to replace or recover the volume of bone that has been resorbed. Many configurations of dental implants exist, along with bone autografts, bone allograft, alloplastic bone substitutes and bone xenograft, to recreate physiological occlusion, and aesthetic and masticatory function. We aimed to investigate whether autogenous bone is still the gold standard for treating patients. Methods: We performed an electronic literature search of the PubMed[tm] database using search terms “substitute bone materials”, “bone grafts”, “bone autografts”, “alloplastic bone”, “bone allograft” and “bone xenograft”. We identified between 100 and 200 research papers and reviews, from which the abstract was read to select 70 (excluding all those that did were not dentistry-related). Qualitative assessment was performed on publications that clearly met the following inclusion criteria: recent papers, published in the last 8 years, related to the terms listed above. Results: The individual healing profile of a given bone substitute with respect to osteogenic potential and substitution rate must be considered when selecting adjunctive grafting materials for bone regeneration procedures. Bone replacement materials could be classified into xenografts, or. substances or other natural hydroxyapatite and biocompatible substances. Allograft materials belong to the same species, but do not contain living cells. Alloplastic materials are synthetic materials used instead of real bone. Autograft bone can be obtained from various intraoral and extraoral sites, such as iliac crest, cranial vault, and tibia of the patient. Different case reports reported the use of different bone substitutes. In one study, standardised mandibular defects in mini-pigs were filled with nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite (HA-SiO), deproteinised bovine bone mineral (DBBM), biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) with a 60/40% HA/β-TCP (tricalcium phosphate) (BCP 60/40) ratio, or particulate autogenous bone for histological and histomorphometric analysis. At 2 and 8 weeks, the percentages of fillers in the test groups were DBBM 35.65%, HA-SiO 34.47%, and BCP 60/40 23.64%. It was significantly higher than autogenous bone and was substituted more quickly, producing more new bone (17.1% ). These findings suggest that the osteogenic potential of HA-SiO and BCP is inferior to that of autogenous bone. However, if a low substitution rate is desired to stabilise volume, as in the aesthetic zone, then HA-SiO and DBBM may be preferable. Conclusion: Despite the increasing number of available bone substitutes in the last years, bone autografts remain the gold standard. They are osteogenic, osteoinductive and osteoconductive, and the newer ones have a regulatory action.

Tooth-borne and implant supported FDPs and an adhesive bridge in combination with orthodontic treatment in lower front teeth.