Comparison of Allogeneic Bone Plate and Guided Bone Regeneration Efficiency in Horizontally Deficient Maxillary Alveolar Ridges


Creative Commons License

Cinar I. C., Gultekin B. A., Saglanmak A., AKAY A. S., Zboun M., Mijiritsky E.

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL, vol.12, no.20, 2022 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 12 Issue: 20
  • Publication Date: 2022
  • Doi Number: 10.3390/app122010518
  • Journal Name: APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Aerospace Database, Agricultural & Environmental Science Database, Applied Science & Technology Source, Communication Abstracts, INSPEC, Metadex, Directory of Open Access Journals, Civil Engineering Abstracts
  • Keywords: allogeneic bone plate, guided bone regeneration, horizontal bone augmentation, shell technique, VOLUMETRIC STABILITY, AUGMENTATION
  • Istanbul University Affiliated: Yes

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.