Cone beam computed tomography evaluation of staged lateral ridge augmentation using platelet‐rich fibrin or resorbable collagen membranes in a randomized controlled clinical trial. Issue 3 (25th February 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hartlev, Jens; Spin‐Neto, Rubens; Schou, Søren; Isidor, Flemming; Nørholt, Sven Erik
• Is Part Of: Clinical oral implants research. Volume 30:Issue 3(2019)
• Page Start: 277
• Page End: 284
• Publication Date: 2019-02-25
• Subjects: bone resorption -- cone beam computed tomography dental -- guided bone regeneration -- membrane -- platelet‐rich fibrin -- ridge augmentation; Dental implants -- Research -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.13413
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0905-7161

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: To evaluate the volumetric changes following lateral alveolar ridge augmentation using autogenous bone graft covered by either a platelet‐rich fibrin membrane (test group) or an inorganic bovine bone substitute and a resorbable collagen barrier membrane (control group). Material and methods: A total of 27 partially edentulous patients (test n = 14, control n = 13) with the indication for lateral bone block augmentation were included in this randomized, controlled clinical trial. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) examination was performed prior to grafting and 2 weeks and 6 months after grafting. The volumetric changes between the various examinations times were evaluated by planimetric measurements on two‐dimensional CBCT images of the grafted regions. Results: The mean bone volumetric loss in the test group was 14.7%, SD ±8.9%, while the mean bone volume loss in the control group was 17.8%, SD ±13.3%. This difference was not significant ( p = 0.48). A total of ten patients were operated in the incisor and canine region with a mean bone volume loss of 23.41% SD, ±10.87%, while 17 patients were operated in the premolar region with a mean bone volume loss of 11.89% SD ±9.05%. This difference was significant ( p = 0.01). Conclusion: The test and control group demonstrated no overall difference in volumetric bone changes of the augmented bone at the 6‐month follow‐up. The second major finding revealed a significantly larger amount of bone resorption in the incisor and canine region than in the premolar region of the maxilla, particularly in the control group.