Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical results of two different horizontal ridge augmentation techniques: guided bone regeneration with sticky bone (SB) and the bone-shell technique (BS). Methods: Records of patients who underwent horizontal ridge augmentation with SB (test) and BS (control) were screened for inclusion. Pre-operative and 6-month post-operative ridge widths were measured on cone beam computer tomography (CBCT) and compared. Post-operative complications and implant survival rate were recorded. Results: Eighty consecutive patients were included in the present study. Post-operative complications (flap dehiscence, and graft infection) occurred in ten patients, who dropped out from the study (12.5% complication rate). Stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis showed a significant inverse correlation between the occurrence of post-operative complications and ridge width (p = 0.025). Seventy patients (35 test; 35 control) with a total of 127 implants were included in the final analysis. Mean ridge width gain was 3.7 ± 1.2 mm in the test and 3.7 ± 1.1 mm in the control group, with no significant difference between the two groups. No implant failure was recorded, with a mean follow-up of 42.7 ± 16.0 months after functional loading. Conclusions: SB and BS showed comparable clinical outcomes in horizontal ridge augmentation, resulting in sufficient crestal width increase to allow implant placement in an adequate bone envelope.
Highlights
Implant dentistry was introduced with the purpose of fulfilling the functional demands of the edentulous patient
Two different horizontal ridge augmentation techniques were compared: the test group was Guided bone regeneration (GBR) with concentrated growth factor (CGF)-enriched bone graft matrix, while the bone-shell technique was used as the control group
The entire analysis was made using information from medical files and cone beam computed tomographies (CBCTs) of patients treated at the European Center of Implantology, located in Bucharest, Romania
Summary
Implant dentistry was introduced with the purpose of fulfilling the functional demands of the edentulous patient. It was and still is of great benefit to replace mobile prosthesis with fixed implant supported restorations or even to increase the retention of mobile prosthesis with the aid of dental implants. Functional and aesthetic improvement begins with the conception of the treatment plan, when the clinician selects among surgical options and decides on the characteristics of the final restoration. Implant position is one of the major factors to consider in order to achieve satisfactory aesthetic outcomes in the final restoration [4]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
