Patient-Reported Outcomes in Intraoral Bone Block Augmentation Compared to GBR Procedures Prior to Implant Placement: A Systematic Review.

Abstract

<b>Objective</b>: To compare the effect of different bone augmentation procedures, namely, autogenous bone blocks (ABBs) versus guided bone regeneration (GBR), on patient-reported outcomes (PROMs). <b>Methods</b>: This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. A MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science search was conducted by two independent reviewers in combination with a free-hand search in relevant journals until June 2025. Outcomes were PROMs to enhance our understanding of the evolution of these procedures. <b>Results</b>: The electronic search yielded 6291 articles. After title screening, 67 articles were further analyzed for abstract review, which resulted in 14 articles eligible for full-text reading. Six articles were finally included based on the exclusion and inclusion criteria with a total of 295 patients. The overall study quality was low, since only two RCTs could be included. One study demonstrated a high risk of bias. Different PROMs were examined and compared such as pain, edema, neurosensory disturbance, Patient-Reported Predominant Symptom, OHIP-14, postoperative analgesic usage, willingness to repeat, and likelihood to recommend. Meta-analysis was not achievable due to a lack of direct comparisons and heterogeneity in terms of PROMs. Evaluation points varied between pretreatment and up to nearly 10-years of follow-up. <b>Conclusions</b>: Despite significant heterogeneity and reporting, this systematic review concluded that ABB and GBR are well-tolerated procedures. Trends such as transient postoperative pain and swelling with a minor occurring of neurosensory disturbances were reported in a few studies. Overall, a good perception of postoperative recovery was reported for both treatment modalities. Good quality of life was noted related to GBR procedures. Patient-reported outcomes were only analyzed for patients who completed the entire follow-up period. This may introduce bias, as patients who dropped out and were more likely to experience complications were not represented, potentially resulting in a more favorable portrayal of the outcomes. Further well-conducted prospective studies with a long follow-up are needed for an evidence-based evaluation and comparison of PROMs for these procedures.