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

dc.authorid0000-0001-7575-3515
dc.authorid0000-0002-1661-7529
dc.authorid0000-0003-2896-7160
dc.contributor.authorCinar, Ihsan Caglar
dc.contributor.authorGultekin, Bahattin Alper
dc.contributor.authorSaglanmak, Alper
dc.contributor.authorAkay, Ayse Sumeyye
dc.contributor.authorZboun, Mohammed
dc.contributor.authorMijiritsky, Eitan
dc.date.accessioned2025-05-10T19:36:49Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.departmentİstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi
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.
dc.description.sponsorshipbotiss biomaterials GmbH; Geistlich Pharma
dc.description.sponsorshipThe study was partially supported by botiss biomaterials GmbH and Geistlich Pharma.
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/app122010518
dc.identifier.issn2076-3417
dc.identifier.issue20
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85140436093
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.3390/app122010518
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14730/9299
dc.identifier.volume12
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000872407600001
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherMdpi
dc.relation.ispartofApplied Sciences-Basel
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.snmzKA_WOS_20250302
dc.subjectallogeneic bone plate
dc.subjectguided bone regeneration
dc.subjecthorizontal bone augmentation
dc.subjectshell technique
dc.titleComparison of Allogeneic Bone Plate and Guided Bone Regeneration Efficiency in Horizontally Deficient Maxillary Alveolar Ridges
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Orijinal paket

Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
Yükleniyor...
Küçük Resim
İsim:
9299.pdf
Boyut:
2.52 MB
Biçim:
Adobe Portable Document Format