Assessment of narrow alveolar ridge expansion by ossiodensification vs. ridge splitting technique for dental implant placement

Abstract

Objectives: Comparing osseodensification vs. ridge splitting techniques in dental implant placement regarding implant stability, insertion torque, bone width and density. Patients and Method: Twenty individuals with a narrow ridge width of 3-6 mm at crestal bone level were included in this study. They were divided into two groups: Group I Osseodensification technique, Group II Ridge splitting technique with bone expanders and sticky bone augmentation. Implant stability, insertion torque, surgical procedure duration, bone width, and density were all evaluated by CBCT. Results: Group (I) had showed higher statistically significant Insertion torque than group (II). While group (II) had showed statistically significant increase in mean ISQ reading after 6 months (p<0.001). Group (II) showed statistically significant higher surgical time than group (I). Group (II) showed a higher increase in bone gain than group (I). Group (I) had showed statistically significant increase in mean bone density postoperatively, after 3 and 6 months (p<0.001*). While group (II) had showed statistically significant increase in mean bone density postoperatively, after 3 and 6 months (p<0.001). Conclusion: Osseodensification technique had been shown to increase ridge width while maintaining primary implant stability and bone density around dental implants without sacrificing bone.