Comparison of in‐situ bone ring technique and tent‐pole technique for horizontally deficient alveolar ridge in the anterior maxilla

Abstract

Background Limited studies focused on the bone profile maintenance at the alveolar ridge crest applying horizontal bone augmentation. Purpose A novel approach named as “in‐situ bone ring technique” was introduced to be compared with tent‐pole technique to evaluate their horizontal bone gain, resorption, and postoperative perception. Materials and methods A total of 30 patients were included in this retrospective cohort study. All patients required horizontal bone augmentation at anterior site. Accordingly, quantitative and qualitative analyses were conduct radiographically and histologically between in‐situ bone ring (ring group) and tent‐pole technique (tent group). Moreover, the visual analog scale (VAS) was introduced to assess the patients' perception toward both treatments. Results Cone‐beam computed tomography results showed great significant difference regarding horizontal bone width at 0 mm and 3 mm from alveolar ridge crest between two groups (P < .05). On the basis of histological outcomes, delightful bony fusion was shown 6‐month postoperatively in ring group. The VAS ratings for pain and swelling reflected similar results between two groups. Conclusions In‐situ bone ring technique evidently increased and maintained horizontal bone mass at the alveolar ridge crest compared to tent‐pole technique, which might be favorable for implant rehabilitation in anterior area. Meanwhile, no further discomfort was caused according to VAS scoring between two groups.

Autogenous bone ring augmentation around single tooth implantation in the esthetic zone: A retrospective case series study with 2–3 years of follow-up

“… 21 In situ bone ring harvesting is another choice, bone rings harvested from the maxilla contain more cancellous bone tissues, supplying abundant osteoprogenitor cells and consequently encouraging the rapid ingrowth of local vessels as well as the revascularization process. 22 , 23 In this study, an in situ bone ring near the apical of the implant insertion area was the first choice. However, if the bone volume in situ is insufficient, the chin was considered as the donor site.…”

Radiographic evaluation of the tenting screw technique in horizontal alveolar bone augmentation: A retrospective study

“…50 Deeb reported 4 instances of wound dehiscence and membrane exposure, and 3 cases of graft loss out of 35 patients treated with the tent-pole technique. 51 Localized post-operation swelling occurred with an incidence ranging from 40% to 100% in patients receiving tenting screw supporting augmentation, 8,52 while the exposure rate of tenting screws amounted to 13.3% 52,53 to 20%. 30 For onlay-positioned grafts, membrane exposure, wound dehiscence, grafted sites infections, and mucosa perforations could be frequently observed (incidence rates of 30.7%, 30%, 14%, and 13%, respectively).…”

Patient-reported outcome measures following surgeries in implant dentistry and associated factors: a cross-sectional study

“…The bone augmentation procedures included guided bone regeneration, sinus floor augmentation (through an osteotome or lateral window approach) and onlay bone grafting. Surgical details for these procedures have been described previously 22–25. Autogenous bone blocks were harvested from the mandibular symphysis for onlay bone grafting.…”