Comparative study between using A‐PRF membrane with Sticky Bone and Traditional GBR procedure at the Bone Defected Area

Abstract

Background: Management of bony defected area in any of the upper or the lower jaw is considered a real challenge for modern implant dentistry. With many obstacles that should be considered before, during and after surgery such as bone substitutes type, Bone graft handling, closure for the flap tension less, prevention of infection, soft tissue dehiscence thought out the period of healing. Many new bone substitutes and collagen membrane combinations have been introduced to solve these issues. Aim/Hypothesis: The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of using the sticky bone with PRF and in comparison, with the same Bone substitute hydrated with saline and covered by a resorbable collagen membrane in a defected area in either jaws upper or lower, in Vivo study. Material and Methods: Ten Patient with severe bilateral horizontal atrophic jaw were included in this study. Each patient was treated on one side with GBR procedure using allograft bone substitute hydrated with normal saline covered by collagen membrane, and the other side was treated with allograft made as sticky bone graft and covered with PRF membrane. Both sides went under the same surgical procedure with same surgical steps from opening the area, dealing with the cortical bone and closure procedure in tension free fashion with the same operator. The healing was monitored at the third, seventh, tenth, and fifteenth day from the surgical procedure. CBCT x‐ray was taken before and after the surgery and as well after three months of healing. Results: There was a significant statistical difference between the two groups with regard of the wound healing and patient comfort. The patients in the second group were felt less pain and suffered less discomfort with a minimal side effects compared with the first group. Also the wound healing is much faster compared with the first group by the primary closure, less edema formation and more fibrous integration between the wound edges. Handling of the sticky bone, transferring it to the defect shaping it was much better compared with the same bone substance mixed with saline. There was no significant statistical difference between the two groups in regard to the bone graft healing in the both groups. Conclusions and Clinical Implications: Using the sticky bone and covering it with PRF have served the patient with better outcomes of wound healing and less patient discomfort after the surgery. There was no significant deference when it comes to bone healing between the both groups. Using the sticky bone with PRF membrane will overcome too many obstacles that could face a surgeon during surgery and enhance the wound healing with less side effects but there was no effect on bone healing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Clinical Oral Implants Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)