Ridge augmentation using autograft and xenograft versus xenograft alone with simultaneous implant placement: a randomised clinical trial

Authors

  • A. Nagaraj A.B.Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Nitte University, Deralakatte, Mangalore, Karnataka, India Author
  • M. Shetty A.B.Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Nitte University, Deralakatte, Mangalore, Karnataka, India Author
  • B. Thomas A.B.Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Nitte University, Deralakatte, Mangalore, Karnataka, India Author
  • R. Hegde A.B.Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Nitte University, Deralakatte, Mangalore, Karnataka, India Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2478/AMB-2024-0057

Keywords:

autograft, guided bone regeneration, resorbable membrane, ridge augmentation, xenograft

Abstract

Aim. To compare the alveolar ridge augmentation using either a 1:1 combination of autograft and bovine graft or bovine graft alone and a slow resorbing collagen membrane with simultaneous placement of implants. Materials and Methods. 24 subjects aged 20-60 years with an atrophic, both vertically and horizontally deficient, edentulous space in the esthetic region of the maxilla were randomly assigned into two groups who underwent guided bone regeneration procedures in conjunction with simultaneous implant placement. Group A received a 1:1 combination of autograft and bovine graft and Group B received bovine graft alone. Primary closure and a tension-free flap were achieved. The study subjects were recalled after six months to assess the alveolar bone augmentation by 
means of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging. The data that was collected was statistically analyzed. Results. The mean alveolar ridge augmentation as seen at 6 months was observed to be 2.09 mm in the vertical dimension and 0.99 mm in the horizontal dimension, respectively, in the Group A subjects. In Group B, a mean vertical augmentation of 1.73 mm and a mean horizontal augmentation of 2.09 mm, respectively, were observed. The difference in mean vertical bone augmentation between the two groups at 6 months as compared to the baseline was statistically insignificant. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that alveolar ridge augmentation using a 1:1 combination of autograft and xenograft with immediate implant placement is a viable treatment option for the atrophic esthetic region of the maxilla. 

References

Cardaropoli D, Gaveglio L, Cardaropoli G. Vertical Ridge augmentation with a collagen membrane, bovine bone mineral and fibrin sealer: Clinical and histologic findings. International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry. 2013;33(5):583–9.

Hermann JS, Buser D. Guided bone regeneration for dental implants. Curr Opin Periodontol. 1996; 3:168-77.

el Chaar E. Ridge augmentation for improved implant placement. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1998 Dec;19(12):1193-8; quiz 1200.

Wilson TG Jr, Buser D. Advances in the use of guided tissue regeneration for localized ridge augmentation in combination

with dental implants. Tex Dent J. 1994 Jul;111(7):5, 7-10.

Sheikh Z, Sima C, Glogauer M. Bone replacement materials and techniques used for achieving vertical alveolar bone augmentation. Materials. 2015; 8(6):2953–93.

Simion M, Fontana F, Rasperini G, Maiorana C. Vertical Ridge augmentation by expanded-polytetrafluoroethylene membrane and a combination of intraoral autogenous bone graft and deproteinized anorganic bovine bone (Bio Oss).

Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2007;18(5):620–9.

Urban IA, Lozada JL, Jovanovic SA, et al. Vertical Ridge augmentation with titanium-reinforced, dense-PTFE membranes

and a combination of particulated autogenous bone and an organic bovine bone–derived mineral: A prospective case series in 19 patients. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2014; 29(1):185–93.

Greene JG, Vermillion JR. The Simplified Oral Hygiene Index. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 1964; 68(1):7–13.

Hämmerle CH, Jung RE. Bone augmentation by means of barrier membranes. Periodontology 2000. 2003; 33(1):36–53.

Deshmukh J, Deshpande S, Khatri R, et al. Vertical and horizontal ridge augmentation in anterior maxilla using autograft, xenograft and titanium mesh with simultaneous placement of endosseous implants. Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology. 2014; 18(5):661.

Zitzmann NU, Naef R, Scharer P. Resorbable versus nonresorbable membranes in combination with Bio-Oss for guided bone regeneration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997; 12: 844–852.

Sheikh Z, Sima C, Glogauer M. Bone replacement materials and techniques used for achieving vertical alveolar bone augmentation. Materials. 2015; 8(6):2953–93.

Simion M, Fontana F, Rasperini G, Maiorana C. Vertical Ridge augmentation by expanded-polytetrafluoroethylene membrane and a combination of intraoral autogenous bone graft and deproteinized anorganic bovine bone (Bio Oss). Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2007; 18(5):620–9.

Kao P, Huang M, Shiau Y. Vertical Ridge Augmentation with a Titanium- Reinforced ePTFE Membrane And Tenting Screws: A Case Report. J Prosthodont and Implant. 2012; 1: 12-18

Wang HL, Carroll MJ. Guided bone regeneration using bone grafts and collagen membranes. Quintessence Int. 2001 Jul-Aug;32(7):504-15

Downloads

Published

04.10.2024

How to Cite

Nagaraj, A., Shetty, M., Thomas, B. ., & Hegde, R. (2024). Ridge augmentation using autograft and xenograft versus xenograft alone with simultaneous implant placement: a randomised clinical trial. Acta Medica Bulgarica, 51(Suppl 2), 83-89. https://doi.org/10.2478/AMB-2024-0057