Guided bone regeneration with concentrated growth factor enriched bone graft matrix (Sticky bone) vs. bone-shell technique in horizontal ridge augmentation: A retrospective study

27Citations
Citations of this article
99Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical results of two different horizontal ridge augmentation techniques: guided bone regeneration with sticky bone (SB) and the bone-shell technique (BS). Methods: Records of patients who underwent horizontal ridge augmentation with SB (test) and BS (control) were screened for inclusion. Pre-operative and 6-month postoperative ridge widths were measured on cone beam computer tomography (CBCT) and compared. Post-operative complications and implant survival rate were recorded. Results: Eighty consecutive patients were included in the present study. Post-operative complications (flap dehiscence, and graft infection) occurred in ten patients, who dropped out from the study (12.5% complication rate). Stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis showed a significant inverse correlation between the occurrence of post-operative complications and ridge width (p = 0.025). Seventy patients (35 test; 35 control) with a total of 127 implants were included in the final analysis. Mean ridge width gain was 3.7 ± 1.2 mm in the test and 3.7 ± 1.1 mm in the control group, with no significant difference between the two groups. No implant failure was recorded, with a mean follow-up of 42.7 ± 16.0 months after functional loading. Conclusions: SB and BS showed comparable clinical outcomes in horizontal ridge augmentation, resulting in sufficient crestal width increase to allow implant placement in an adequate bone envelope.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Barbu, H. M., Iancu, S. A., Rapani, A., & Stacchi, C. (2021). Guided bone regeneration with concentrated growth factor enriched bone graft matrix (Sticky bone) vs. bone-shell technique in horizontal ridge augmentation: A retrospective study. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(17). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10173953

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free