İki kemik arttırım yönteminin karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Aim: This study aims to compare Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) performed using autogenous block graft to particulate autograft with xenograft from physicians’ and patients’ perspectives.Methods: 30 systemically healthy individuals participated in this study. GBR using block graft (GBR-BAX) was performed in 15 of the patients and GBR using particulate autograft with xenograft (GBR-PAX) was performed in the other 15 patients. Bone thickness was recorded preoperatively and in the 6th month postoperatively. Bleeding, hematoma, flap dehiscence, infection, and paresthesia were evaluated. Patients were requested to record pain intensity and swelling levels using the visual analog scale (VAS) on the 3rd, 7th, and 14th days after surgery. The swelling levels were also recorded by a clinician on the 3rd, 7th, and 14th days after surgery. The cost of the surgery, the time spent on preparing the patient for the surgery, the time spent during the surgery, and the fatigue levels of the physician resulting from surgery were also determined.Results: Both GBR-BAX and GBR-PAX provided significant bone gain. Bleeding, hematoma, flap dehiscence, infection, and paresthesia levels found also similar. Both techniques caused similar pain, swelling, and discomfort on the 3rd, 7th, and 14th days. VAS results showed no differences in terms of pain and discomfort. GBR-BAX was found more time-consuming in both preparation and surgical period and tiring for the physician but was less costly compared to GBR-PAX. Conclusion: Within the limitation of the present study, GBR with autogenous block graft and particulate autograft plus xenograft provided similar bone gain and caused similar complications, pain, and discomfort. In terms of efficacy, none of the two techniques was found superior to the other; however, block graft was more time-consuming, tiring, and costly.