scholarly journals Evaluation of complication rates and vertical bone gain after guided bone regeneration with non-resorbable membranes versus titanium meshes and resorbable membranes. A randomized clinical trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 821-832 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Cucchi ◽  
Elisabetta Vignudelli ◽  
Aldo Napolitano ◽  
Claudio Marchetti ◽  
Giuseppe Corinaldesi
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Bone Gain

Block Allograft Technique versus Standard Guided Bone Regeneration: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 655-667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo Amorfini ◽  
Marco Migliorati ◽  
Alessio Signori ◽  
Armando Silvestrini-Biavati ◽  
Stefano Benedicenti
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration

scholarly journals Evaluation of Bone Gain and Complication Rates after Guided Bone Regeneration with Titanium Foils: A Systematic Review

Materials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (23) ◽  
pp. 5346
Author(s):  
Elisabet Roca-Millan ◽  
Enric Jané-Salas ◽  
Albert Estrugo-Devesa ◽  
José López-López
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Native Bone ◽  
Collagen Membranes ◽  
Bone Gain

Guided bone regeneration techniques are increasingly used to enable the subsequent placement of dental implants. This systematic review aims to analyze the success rate of these techniques in terms of bone gain and complications rate using titanium membranes as a barrier element. Electronic and hand searches were conducted in PubMed/Medline, Scielo, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases for case reports, case series, cohort studies and clinical trials in humans published up to and including 19 September 2020. Thirteen articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Bone gain both horizontally and vertically was comparable to that obtained with other types of membranes more commonly used. The postoperative complication rate was higher that of native collagen membranes and non-resorbable titanium-reinforced membranes, and similar that of crosslinked collagen membranes and titanium meshes. The survival rate of the implants was similar to that of implants placed in native bone. Due to the limited scientific literature published on this issue, more randomized clinical trials comparing occlusive titanium barriers and other types of membranes are necessary to reach more valid conclusions.

scholarly journals Hard and soft tissue evaluation after guided bone regeneration (gbr) with non‐resorbable membranes versus titanium meshes: A randomized clinical trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (S19) ◽  
pp. 486-486
Author(s):  
Antonino Fiorino ◽  
Alessandro Cucchi ◽  
Elisabetta Vignudelli ◽  
Lisa Rinaldi ◽  
Elisa Rocchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration

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

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Alper Gultekin ◽  
Elcin Bedeloglu ◽  
T. Emre Kose ◽  
Eitan Mijiritsky
Keyword(s):  
Bone Resorption ◽  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Outcome Variable ◽  
Insertion Torque ◽  
Recipient Site ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Bone Atrophy ◽  
Augmentation Techniques ◽  
Bone Gain

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.

scholarly journals Clinical Study for Silk Mat Application into Extraction Socket: A Split-Mouth, Randomized Clinical Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 1208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ju-Won Kim ◽  
You-Young Jo ◽  
Jwa-Young Kim ◽  
Ji-hyeon Oh ◽  
Byoung-Eun Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Simple Method ◽  
Extraction Socket ◽  
Probing Depth ◽  
T1 And T2 ◽  
Bone Gain ◽  
Attachment Level

Silk mat originates from the cocoon of the silkworm and is prepared by a simple method. The material has been used for guided bone regeneration (GBR) in animal models. In this study, the silk mat used for a clinical application was compared with a commercially available membrane for GBR. A prospective split-mouth, randomized clinical trial was conducted with 25 patients who had bilaterally impacted lower third molars. High-density polytetrafluoroethylene (dPTFE) membrane or silk mat was applied in the extraction socket randomly. Probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and bone gain (BG) were measured at the time of extraction (T0) and then at three months (T1) and six months after extraction (T2). There was no missing case. GBR with silk mat was non-inferior to GBR with dPTFE for PD reduction at T1 and T2 (pnon-inferiority < 0.001). PD and CAL were significantly decreased at T1 and T2 when compared with those at T0 in both membrane groups (p < 0.001). BG at T2 was 3.61 ± 3.33 mm and 3.56 ± 3.30 mm in the silk mat group and dPTFE group, respectively. There was no significant complication from the use of silk mat for the patients. The results for patients undergoing GBR with silk mat for third-molar surgery were non-inferior to GBR with dPTFE for PD reduction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document