Abstract

Objective To compare using autogenous bone with or without bioactive glass in ridge splitting of horizontal bone defects combined with simultaneous implant placement. Materials and Methods In control group, bone expansion was performed and autogenous bone was used to augment the intercortical bone defect. In study group, autogenous bone was mixed with bioactive glass (1 : 1 in volume). In both groups, the implants were inserted simultaneously with ridge splitting. Six months following implant insertion, bone width and height were evaluated. Statistical analysis utilizing paired Student's t-test was used for comparing results within the same group, whereas independent samples t-test was used for intergroup variables comparison. Results The mean bone width and labial and mesiodistal crestal bone height values were increased significantly in both groups from baseline to 6 months postoperatively. Comparing the two groups showed nonstatistical significant difference regarding the labial crestal bone loss, while the ridge width gain values were significantly higher in the study group than in the control group. The mesiodistal bone loss was significantly higher in control group than in study group. Conclusion Autogenous bone was mixed with bioactive glass (1 : 1 in volume) to fill intercortical defect created after ridge splitting to decrease peri-implant bone resorption associated with autogenous bone alone. This trial is registered with clinical trial registration: NCT04814160.

Highlights

  • To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that will evaluate the effect of autogenous bone mixed with bioactive glass in ridge splitting with simultaneous implant placement. e present study was conducted to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes following the application of the alveolar ridge splitting and simultaneous implant placement approaches using autogenous bone with or without bioactive glass, in patients with horizontally atrophic jaw bones in maxillary esthetic zone

  • Is present study tested two hypotheses: (1) the first is the hypothesis of the superiority of a (1 : 1 in volume) mixture of autogenous and bioactive glass bone graft over autogenous bone graft alone and (2) further, if the first hypothesis was rejected (i.e., a (1 : 1 in volume) mixture of autogenous and bioactive glass bone graft is not superior to autogenous bone graft alone), we tested the noninferiority hypothesis of the autogenous bone graft alone according to an acceptable limit of noninferiority

  • Horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation by using the ridge splitting technique was performed between April 2020 and March 2021. 30 implants were inserted in 22 patients (14 males and 8 females), with an average age of 37 years (Table 1)

Read more

Summary

Objective

To compare using autogenous bone with or without bioactive glass in ridge splitting of horizontal bone defects combined with simultaneous implant placement. Autogenous bone was mixed with bioactive glass (1 : 1 in volume). In both groups, the implants were inserted simultaneously with ridge splitting. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that will evaluate the effect of autogenous bone mixed with bioactive glass in ridge splitting with simultaneous implant placement. E present study was conducted to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes following the application of the alveolar ridge splitting and simultaneous implant placement approaches using autogenous bone with or without bioactive glass, in patients with horizontally atrophic jaw bones in maxillary esthetic zone To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that will evaluate the effect of autogenous bone mixed with bioactive glass in ridge splitting with simultaneous implant placement. e present study was conducted to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes following the application of the alveolar ridge splitting and simultaneous implant placement approaches using autogenous bone with or without bioactive glass, in patients with horizontally atrophic jaw bones in maxillary esthetic zone

Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call