Ridge augmentation using autologous concentrated growth factors enriched bone graft matrix versus guided bone regeneration using native collagen membrane in horizontally deficient maxilla: A randomized clinical trial

  • Sarah Abd Allah Aboelela
  • , Mohammed Atef
  • , Mohamed Shawky*
  • , Hesham Fattouh
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

20 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: Facial resorption of maxillary alveolar ridges is a challenging situation for implant rehabilitation, which mandates a preparatory surgery of bone augmentation. Guided bone regeneration using a 1:1 mixture of autogenous particulate and anorganic bovine bone mineral (ABBM) showed reliable outcomes in treating horizontally deficient ridges. Methods: Twenty-eight patients were randomly assigned into two groups; in the control group, the 1:1 mixture of particulate autogenous bone and ABBM was covered with native collagen membrane, while in the study group, it was mixed with autologous fibrin glue (AFG) to make a sticky bone that was covered by concentrated growth factor (CGF) membrane. For each proposed implant site, the average bone width gain was calculated preoperatively, immediately after augmentation and after 6 months. Implants were placed after 6 months and the implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured after insertion and after 6 more months. Results: The graft consolidation period went uneventful in both groups; however, two cases in the sticky bone group showed total resorption of the graft upon re-entry. The mean horizontal bone width after 6 months was 9 mm ± 0.71 in the guided bone regeneration (GBR) group which was higher than 7.9 mm ± 0.92 for the sticky bone group. The mean primary stability was higher in the GBR group; 67.19 ± 2.23 compared to 66.7 ± 3.22 for the sticky bone group, while the mean secondary stability was higher in the sticky bone group; 72 ± 2.15 compared to 71.7 ± 2.27 for the GBR group. Results of Shapiro–Wilk's for bone width data and model residuals were both statistically not significant (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Comparing CGF membrane versus native collagen membrane as barriers for GBR showed no statistically significant difference regarding bone gain. However, from a clinical point of view, CGF membrane is not a predictable barrier for guided bone regeneration.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)569-579
Number of pages11
JournalClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
Volume24
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2022
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • ABBM
  • CGF
  • collagen membrane
  • GBR
  • horizontal augmentation
  • ISQ
  • PRF
  • ridge augmentation
  • sticky bone

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Ridge augmentation using autologous concentrated growth factors enriched bone graft matrix versus guided bone regeneration using native collagen membrane in horizontally deficient maxilla: A randomized clinical trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this