Premium
Comparison of in‐situ bone ring technique and tent‐pole technique for horizontally deficient alveolar ridge in the anterior maxilla
Author(s) -
Yuan Shuai,
Mu Zhixiang,
Huang Yuanding,
Bai Shi,
Xu Peng,
Chen Tao
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/cid.12887
Subject(s) - medicine , visual analogue scale , maxilla , crest , alveolar crest , ridge , dentistry , alveolar ridge , iliac crest , mandible (arthropod mouthpart) , dental alveolus , anatomy , implant , surgery , geology , paleontology , physics , botany , quantum mechanics , biology , genus
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.