Efficacy of Regenerative Materials and Ultrasonic Ridge Splitting Technique with Simultaneous Implants Placement into Narrow Alveolar Ridge

Abstract

Aim:This study compares clinically and radiographically between efficacies of two different bone graft materials with amniotic membrane in narrow alveolar ridges subjected to ridge expansion by ultrasonic bone surgery to receive simultaneous implant placement. Subjects and Methods: Twenty-two systemically healthy patients with partial edentulous narrow anterior maxillary ridge classified randomly into the following equal groups: Group Ι patients with partial edentulous narrow ridge; treated by ridge splitting technique and simultaneous implant placement into their ridge; associated with deproteinized bovine bone (Bio-Oss ®) and amniotic membrane. Group II patients with partial edentulous narrow ridge; treated by ridge splitting technique and simultaneous implant placement into their ridge; associated with hydroxyapatite and 40% beta-tricalcium phosphate (easy-graft™ crystal) and amniotic membrane. Evaluation of implant success rate was done, and the clinical parameters were recorded for all implants. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) values was recorded. Efficacy of regenerative materials was observed by evaluation of marginal bone level and bone density. Results: Alveolar ridge width was increased in all groups. The mean value of alveolar ridge width in group I 3.64 mm ±0.3 at baseline that increased to 6.90mm ±0.6. The mean value of Alveolar ridge width in group II was 4.17 mm ±0.7at baseline that increased to 6.65 mm ±0.4. Group II showed the highest ISQ, bone density and the lowest marginal bone loss values after twelve months of implant placement. Conclusion: The use of piezo-electric surgery with bone grafting as sole tool for ridge splitting is promising technique.

Evaluation of Implant Stability after Conventional Versus Piezoelectric Alveolar Ridge Splitting with Immediate Implantation in Mandibular Posterior Region “A Randomized Controlled Trial”

“…This was similar to results obtained by El-Halawany et al (68.7 for control group, 73.3 for study group) who performed conventional cutting in their study (16) . Also, close results were obtained by Kamel et al who used PS (17). The results were slightly higher than those reported by Altaweel et al (18) .…”