English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background: The present study evaluated the augmented bone around a dental implant utilizing synthetic bone (Sinoss Graft) or xenograft bone (Tutobone Graft) materials. Methods: A group of patients were divided into two groups, based on the graft material used. Group I Patients were treated by placing two dental implants, with guided bone regeneration using synthetic bone material. (Sinoss Graft) and Group II Patients were treated by placing two dental implants, with guided bone regeneration using xenograft bone material (Tutobone Graft). Results: GTR + Xenograft group recorded a higher Osstell measurement than GTR + synthetic bone group. In GTR +synthetic bone or GTR + xenograft groups; there was a statistically significant different. GTR + xenograft showed a higher bone density than GTR +synthetic bone group. Conclusion: Treatment of osseous defects using Xenografts in combination with GTR, generally, has significant better clinical outcome.

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of bone augmentation around dental implant using different bone graft materials