During the whole observation period, both groups showed comparable clinical and histologic outcomes. Within the limitations of the present study, CM seems to be a promising alternative for the regeneration of keratinized mucosa without tissue harvesting. Comparative long-term studies are needed to investigate changes over time.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Due to its osteoinductive potential, the periosteum plays a crucial role in the process of neoosteogenesis. Therefore, periosteal elevation can lead to new bone formation in an artificially created space. In this study, we compared dynamic periosteal elevation with static shielding in an animal experiment. Different elevation/shielding heights of 5, 10, and 15 mm were tested with regard to various consolidation periods. Histological analysis, histomorphometry, and microradiography were used to measure the quantity and quality of the newly formed bone. No significant differences regarding bone quantity or quality were found between the two techniques. The cumulative results for the bone regeneration in the space created by distraction/elevation were about 66% in the dynamic and 67% in static procedure. The main advantages of both techniques are minimal invasion and low morbidity. In terms of clinical applications, periosteal elevation could be applied in cranio-maxillofacial surgery, in pre-implant augmentation and in reconstructive surgery.