Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://repository.aaup.edu/jspui/handle/123456789/1712
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorIhsan Caglar, Cinar$Other$Other-
dc.contributor.authorGultekin, Bahattin Alper$Other$Other-
dc.contributor.authorSaglanmak, Alper$Other$Other-
dc.contributor.authorAkay, Ayse Sumeyye$Other$Other-
dc.contributor.authorZboun, Mohammed$AAUP$Palestinian-
dc.contributor.authorMijiritsky, Eitan$AAUP$Palestinian-
dc.date.accessioned2023-10-16T10:02:16Z-
dc.date.available2023-10-16T10:02:16Z-
dc.date.issued2022-10-18-
dc.identifier.citationCinar, 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/ app122010518en_US
dc.identifier.issnhttps://doi.org/10.3390/app122010518-
dc.identifier.urihttp://repository.aaup.edu/jspui/handle/123456789/1712-
dc.description.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.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipNoneen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherMDPI (Applied Science)en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries12(20);p.10518-
dc.subjectallogeneic bone plateen_US
dc.subjectguided bone regenerationen_US
dc.subjecthorizontal bone augmentation;en_US
dc.subjectshell techniqueen_US
dc.titleComparison of Allogeneic Bone Plate and Guided Bone Regeneration Efficiency in Horizontally Deficient Maxillary Alveolar Ridgesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Appears in Collections:Faculty & Staff Scientific Research publications

Show simple item record


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

Admin Tools