Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://repository.aaup.edu/jspui/handle/123456789/1712
Title: Comparison of Allogeneic Bone Plate and Guided Bone Regeneration Efficiency in Horizontally Deficient Maxillary Alveolar Ridges
Authors: Ihsan Caglar, Cinar$Other$Other
Gultekin, Bahattin Alper$Other$Other
Saglanmak, Alper$Other$Other
Akay, Ayse Sumeyye$Other$Other
Zboun, Mohammed$AAUP$Palestinian
Mijiritsky, Eitan$AAUP$Palestinian
Keywords: allogeneic bone plate
guided bone regeneration
horizontal bone augmentation;
shell technique
Issue Date: 18-Oct-2022
Publisher: MDPI (Applied Science)
Citation: Cinar, I.C.; Gultekin, B.A.; Saglanmak, A.; Akay, A.S.; Zboun, M.; Mijiritsky, E. Comparison of Allogeneic Bone Plate and Guided Bone Regeneration Efficiency in Horizontally Deficient Maxillary Alveolar Ridges. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10518. https://doi.org/10.3390/ app122010518
Series/Report no.: 12(20);p.10518
Abstract: (1) Background: Bone Lamina Technique and Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) are commonly used for horizontally-deficient maxillary ridge reconstruction, although more detailed evaluation to assess the differences between such techniques is necessitated. (2) Methods: In this retrospective study, patients having a horizontal bone width of ≤ 4 mm in the maxilla, who were treated with Cortical Strut (CS), were collected to represent the “test group”, and those treated with GBR with no CS involvement represented the “control group”. A 1:1 mixture of autogenous bone (AB) and anorganic bovine bone (ABB) with resorbable collagen membrane was applied to both groups. Volumetric changes between groups were measured with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). The primary outcome represented volumetric graft resorption rate whilst the secondary outcomes represented any probable complications and implant insertion torque. (3) Results: A total of 36 patients were included in this study (36 grafted sites; 18 for CS group and 18 for GBR group). Mean bone graft volume reduction in the CS and GBR groups was 8.26 ± 1.60% and 14.36 ± 3.55%, respectively. The GBR group showed significantly more bone resorption than the CS group (p < 0.001). Complications and insertion torque were similar between the groups (p > 0.05). (4) Conclusions: Both CS and GBR techniques for hard-tissue augmentation provided sufficient bone graft mass volume for implant insertion, whereas CS demonstrated lower resorption rate at maxillary augmented sites, compared to GBR.
URI: http://repository.aaup.edu/jspui/handle/123456789/1712
ISSN: https://doi.org/10.3390/app122010518
Appears in Collections:Faculty & Staff Scientific Research publications



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Admin Tools