Ridge augmentation using autologous concentrated growth factors enriched bone graft matrix versus guided bone regeneration using native collagen membrane in horizontally deficient maxilla: A randomized clinical trial

alexandrossfakianakis shared this article with you from Inoreader Ridge augmentation using autologous concentrated growth factors enriched bone graft matrix versus guided bone regeneration using native collagen membrane in horizontally deficient maxilla: A randomized clinical trial via Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Abstract Background Facial resorption of maxillary alveolar ridges is a challenging situation for implant rehabilitation, which mandates a preparatory surgery of bone augmentation. Guided bone regeneration using a 1:1 mixture of autogenous particulate and anorganic bovine bone mineral (ABBM) showed reliable outcomes in treating horizontally deficient ridges. Methods Twenty-eight patients were randomly assigned into two groups; in the control group, the 1:1 mixture of particulate autogenous bone and ABBM was covered with native collagen membrane, while in the study group, it was mixed with autologous fibrin glue (AFG) to make a sticky bone that was covered by concentrated growth factor (CGF) membrane. For each proposed implant site, the average bone width gain was calculated preoperatively, immediately after augmentation and after 6 months. Implants were placed after 6 months and the implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured after insertion and after 6 more months. Results The graft consolidation period went uneventful in both groups; however, two cases in the sticky bone group showed total resorption of the graft upon re-entry. The mean horizontal bone width after 6 months was 9 mm ± 0.71 in the guided bone regeneration (GBR) group which was higher than 7.9 mm ± 0.92 for the sticky bone group. The mean primary stability was higher in the GBR group; 67.19 ± 2.23 compared to 66.7 ± 3.22 for the sticky bone group, while the mean secondary stability was higher in the sticky bone group; 72 ± 2.15 compared to 71.7 ± 2.27 for the GBR group. Results of Shapiro–Wilk's for bone width data and model residuals were both statistically not significant (p > 0.05). Conclusion Comparing CGF membrane versus native collagen membrane as barriers for GBR showed no statistically significant difference regarding bone gain. However, from a clinical point of view, CGF membrane is not a predictable barrier for guided bone regeneration. View on Web

Inoreader. Take back control of your news feed. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.