Comparison of Bone Resorption Rates after Intraoral Block Bone and Guided Bone Regeneration Augmentation for the Reconstruction of Horizontally Deficient Maxillary Alveolar Ridges

Abstract

Purpose. Bone atrophy after tooth loss may leave insufficient bone for implant placement. We compared volumetric changes after autogenous ramus block bone grafting (RBG) or guided bone regeneration (GBR) in horizontally deficient maxilla before implant placement. Materials and Methods. In this retrospective study, volumetric changes at RBG or GBR graft sites were evaluated using cone-beam computed tomography. The primary outcome variable was the volumetric resorption rate. Secondary outcomes were bone gain, graft success, and implant insertion torque. Results. Twenty-four patients (28 grafted sites) were included (GBR, 15; RBG, 13). One patient (RBG) suffered mucosal dehiscence at the recipient site 6 weeks after surgery, which healed spontaneously. Mean volume reduction in the GBR and RBG groups was 12.48 ± 2.67% and 7.20 ± 1.40%, respectively. GBR resulted in significantly more bone resorption than RBG (P < 0.001). Mean horizontal bone gain and width after healing were significantly greater in the GBR than in the RBG group (P = 0.002 and 0.005, resp.). Implant torque was similar between groups (P > 0.05). Conclusions. Both RBG and GBR hard-tissue augmentation techniques provide adequate bone graft volume and stability for implant insertion. However, GBR causes greater resorption at maxillary augmented sites than RBG, which clinicians should consider during treatment planning.

Horizontal ridge augmentation with guided bone regeneration using particulate xenogenic bone substitutes with or without autogenous block grafts: A randomized controlled trial

“…10,20 This technique has been widely used for implant site development and it has demonstrated reproducible outcomes restoring bone defects with high implant survival rates and low complication rates. 26 The group treated with GBR alone, deproteinized bovine bone was mixed with particulate autogenous bone. [21][22][23][24] Coverage of particulate low resorption rate bone substitutes with resorbable membranes can reduce the rate of bone resorption.…”

The influence of wound closure on graft stability: An in vitro comparison of different bone grafting techniques for the treatment of one‐wall horizontal bone defects

“…Stabilization was comparable with group 3. Clinical studies led to a similar conclusion: In larger bone defects, autogenous blocks show better results than GBR procedures in terms of bone gain …”

“…When bone augmentation is performed, various factors can impact the volume stability of the grafted area. The literature describes graft resorption as the main factor leading to bone volume reduction . Micromotion, however, can additionally influence the volume of the augmented site during the healing period, especially with particulate bone grafts.…”

“…In group 2, additional fixation pins were used to secure the resorbable membranes . This method aimed at securing and stabilizing the barrier membrane and the graft material to prevent graft migration and membrane collapse …”

“…The literature describes graft resorption as the main factor leading to bone volume reduction. [14][15][16] Micromotion, however, can additionally influence the volume of the augmented site during the healing period, especially with particulate bone grafts. This study sought to evaluate the effect of wound closure alone on the volume stability of grafted sites, as this effect is often not individually considered in studies and can have a significant influence on the final graft dimension.…”