Comparative analysis of alveolar bone volume reconstruction outcomes using the guided bone regeneration technique

Abstract

Relevance. The success of dental implant treatment in cases of reduced alveolar bone volume hinges on restoring bone to the required dimensions in each case. The guided bone regeneration (GBR) technique, which encompasses various techniques, holds a central role in oral reconstructive surgery and dental implantology due to its capacity for continuous improvement. The authors' experience with a modified GBR technique incorporating a situational Vicryl framework (SVF) has demonstrated enhanced effectiveness, with the potential to restore vertical bone volume by 5 mm or more. This study aimed to evaluate the advantages of the modified GBR technique using SVF compared to the conventional GBR technique.Materials and methods. This study is based on a comprehensive comparative analysis of two datasets: a retrospective evaluation of dental implant treatment outcomes in 210 patients who required alveolar bone volume restoration using the classical GBR technique, and clinical data from 40 patients treated with both the classical GBR technique and the proposed modified SVF technique The oral status of 40 patients included in the clinical analysis was characterized by partial edentulism, accompanied by mild to moderate alveolar bone deformities resulting from either inflammatory resorption or natural atrophy. The retrospective group 1 (comparisons) consisted of archival data of 210 patients. Retrospective data from 210 patients and clinical data from 40 patients were subjected to statistical analysis using parametric and non-parametric methods with IBM SPSS Statistics software.Results. A comprehensive comparative analysis of retrospective and clinical data revealed the following results. The value of the integrated "restored bone volume" parameter after vertical reconstruction in group 1 was 2-3 mm. The mean value of the integrated "restored bone volume" parameter after vertical reconstruction in group 2 was 3.20±0.96 mm, while in group 3, it was 4.60±1.63 mm for patients of both sexes. Comparison of the integrated "baseline deformation" parameter by technique showed a median deformation of 2.95 mm in group 2, treated with the classical GBR technique, and 4.95 mm in group 3, treated with the modified SVF technique. Similarly, the integrated "restored bone volume" parameter showed a median value of 2.95 mm in group 2 and 4.85 mm in group 3. The average value of the integrated "restored bone volume" parameter in group 2 was comparable to retrospective data from 210 patients in group 1.Conclusion. The comprehensive analysis of alveolar bone volume reconstruction using two GBR techniques, based on "baseline deformation" and "restored bone volume" parameters, demonstrated a significant advantage of the modified GBR technique compared to the classical technique.