Guided bone regeneration for peri‐implant augmentation: A retrospective study comparing two surgical techniques with a mean follow‐up of 26 months

Abstract

ObjectivesTo introduce a modified guided bone regeneration (GBR) technique using intact periosteum and deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) for peri‐implant augmentation and compare the clinical outcomes with those of conventional GBR.Materials and MethodsPatients who received peri‐implant augmentation in posterior sites between 2015 and 2021 were reviewed in this study. Group A was treated with a modified GBR technique, and Group B was treated with conventional GBR. For group comparison, propensity score matching was performed with a sensitivity analysis. The implant survival rate, dimensional changes in hard tissue, marginal bone loss (MBL), and peri‐implant parameters were evaluated.ResultsIn total, 114 implants from 98 patients were included. The implant survival rates were 95.74% in Group A and 95.00% in Group B during the follow‐up period. At 6 months, the median horizontal thickness was recorded at 0.87 mm (IQ1–IQ3 = 0.00–1.75 mm) in Group A, exhibiting a relatively lower value compared to the corresponding measurement of 0.98 mm (IQ1–IQ3 = 0.00–1.89 mm) in Group B (p = .937). Vertical height displayed no statistically significant intergroup difference between the two groups (p = .758). The mean follow‐up period was 25.83 ± 12.93 months after loading in Group A and 27.47 ± 21.29 months in Group B (p = .761). MBL and peri‐implant parameters were comparable between the two groups.ConclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, the modified GBR technique using intact periosteum and DBBM grafting might be a viable alternative to correct bone defects around implants in molar and premolar sites.