Effectiveness of Two Different Lingual Flap Advancing Techniques for Vertical Bone Augmentation in the Posterior Mandible: A Comparative, Split-Mouth Cadaver Study

Urban, Istvan A.; Traxler, Hannes; Romero-Bustillos, Miguel; Farkasdi, Sándor; Bartee, Barry K.; Ávila‐Ortiz, Gustavo

doi:10.11607/prd.3227

Cited by 24 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…CALF showed the highest mean of flap advancement (19.9 mm) which is higher than that reported by Urban et al 19 (16.4 mm in some zones). This could be due to recording the combination of the buccal and lingual flap advancement.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 68%

“…The flap was extended with minimum tension while the probe was positioned perpendicular to the crest of the ridge and kept parallel to the flap direction (Figure 5). 19 The readings were taken at the mesial, middle, and distal parts of the flap, for each part the advancement was measured three times and an average of the three readings was recorded by a single examiner. In CALF, MPRI, and PRI groups the flap advancement was measured before and after scoring then the difference was calculated while for the DF group the advancement was recorded as the difference of extension between the two layers of the flap.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical comparison of different flap advancement techniques to periosteal releasing incision in guided bone regeneration: A randomized controlled trial

Zazou

Diab

Bahaa

et al. 2020

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To compare Double Flap Incision (DF), Coronally Advanced Lingual Flap (CALF), and Modified Periosteal Releasing Incision (MPRI) to Periosteal Releasing Incision (PRI) in flap advancement, postoperative complications in augmentation using titanium mesh. Material and methods Forty patients with partially edentulous posterior mandibles were randomly assigned to the four groups. We evaluated: (a) Flap advancement in mm (Primary outcome). (b) Pain using the Numerical Rating scale (NRS). (c) Swelling using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). (d) Exposure in mm and exposure percentage at 1 week to 6 months. Results The CALF showed the highest mean flap advancement of 19.9 (±5.0) mm while the PRI showed the lowest; 10.2 (±1.7) mm. The difference between groups was statistically significant (P value <.0001). MPRI showed the highest pain score of 5.3 (±1.3) while the DF showed the lowest; 2.39 (±1.7). Swelling did not show a significant difference between groups. MPRI showed the highest exposure mean; 18.6 mm (±26.3) while CALF showed the lowest; 2.5 mm (±4.0). PRI showed the highest exposure percentage; 7.4% (±9.3) while CALF showed the lowest; 0.4% (±0.7). The difference between groups was insignificant. Conclusions CALF reported highest advancement, least complications while PRI reported the highest complications.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 68%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical comparison of different flap advancement techniques to periosteal releasing incision in guided bone regeneration: A randomized controlled trial

Zazou

Diab

Bahaa

et al. 2020

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These complications could lead to the complete loss of the entire graft. Therefore, the surgeon must comply with the following precautions 16,25,[30][31][32] . (Fig.…”

Section: Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ridge augmentation in implant dentistry

Kim

2020

JKAOMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In patients with insufficient bone height and width, the successful placement of dental implants is difficult with regards to maintaining an ideal pathway and avoiding important anatomical structures. Vertical and/or horizontal ridge augmentation may be necessary using various bone substitute materials and bone graft procedures. However, effective one-wall reconstruction has been challenging due to its poor blood supply and insufficient graft stability. In this paper, the authors summarize current evidence-based literature based on the author's clinical experience. Regarding bone substitutes, it is advantageous for clinicians to select the types of bone substitutes including autogenous bone. The most important consideration is to minimize complications through principle-based ridge augmentation surgery. Ridge augmentation should be decided with complete consent of the patients due to the possible disadvantages of surgery, complications, and unpredictable prognosis.

show abstract

“…These unfortunate adverse events may result in unfavorable bone augmentation outcomes, massive hemorrhage (Askar et al, ; Camargo & Van Sickels, ), neurosensory disturbances, and impaired mastication function. Therefore, successful flap release and meticulous tissue management for achieving primary wound closure depend on a thorough anatomical understanding (Chan et al, ; Ritter et al, ; Urban et al, , ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasonographic characterization of lingual structures pertinent to oral, periodontal, and implant surgery

Barootchi

Chan

Namazi

et al. 2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Increased applications of ridge augmentation in the lingual posterior mandible call for an urgent need to study its anatomy. Therefore, our first aim was to validate ultrasound in measuring the mandibular lingual structures in human cadavers. Secondarily, to test its feasibility in imaging the lingual nerve in live humans. Materials and methods Nine fresh un‐embalmed fully/partially edentulous cadaver heads were utilized for aim 1. Three areas in the lingual mandible were imaged (mandibular premolar, molar, and retromolar). Immediately after, biopsies were harvested from each site. The thickness of the mucosa, mylohyoid muscle, and lingual nerve diameter was measured via ultrasound and statistically compared to histology. Similarly, the lingual nerve in live humans was also imaged. Results None of the differences between the ultrasound and histology measurements reached statistical significance (p > .05). The mean mucosal thickness via ultrasound and histology was 1.45 ± 0.49 and 1.39 ± 0.50 mm, 5 mm lingual to the mylohyoid muscle attachment. At 10 mm beyond the attachment, the ultrasound and histologic values were 1.54 ± 0.48 and 1.37 ± 0.49, respectively. The mean muscle thickness measured via ultrasound and histology was 2.31 ± 0.56 and 2.25 ± 0.47 mm, at the 5 mm distance. At the 10 mm distance, the measurements were 2.46 ± 0.56 and 2.36 ± 0.5 mm, respectively. The mean ultrasonic lingual nerve diameter was 2.38 ± 0.44 mm, versus 2.43 ± 0.42 mm, with histology. The lingual nerve diameter on 19 live humans averaged to 2.01 ± 0.35 mm (1.4–3.1 mm). Conclusions Within its limitations, ultrasound accurately measured mandibular lingual soft tissue structures on cadavers, and the lingual nerve on live humans.

show abstract

Effectiveness of Two Different Lingual Flap Advancing Techniques for Vertical Bone Augmentation in the Posterior Mandible: A Comparative, Split-Mouth Cadaver Study

Cited by 24 publications

References 0 publications

Clinical comparison of different flap advancement techniques to periosteal releasing incision in guided bone regeneration: A randomized controlled trial

Clinical comparison of different flap advancement techniques to periosteal releasing incision in guided bone regeneration: A randomized controlled trial

Ridge augmentation in implant dentistry

Ultrasonographic characterization of lingual structures pertinent to oral, periodontal, and implant surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About