Vertical Ridge Augmentation With Autogenous Onlay Blocks Combined With Guided Bone Regeneration Versus Autogenous Bone Graft With Titanium Mesh in Posterior Mandible

Cairo University (CU)

Status: Unknown

Conditions: Posterior Mandible With Deficient Ridge Height

Treatments: Device: autogenous rings with GBR and autogenous graft with ti-mesh

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other

Identifiers

NCT03680118

cairouimplant masters

Details and patient eligibility

About

Atrophic ridge augmentation utilizing guided bone regeneration (GBR) has become a major treatment option to provide optimal bone support for osseointegrated dental implants. GBR was initially employed to treat simple defects, including dehiscence and fenestration defects. In addition, GBR has been utilized for horizontal and vertical ridge augmentations and has demonstrated reproducible outcomes, with high implant survival rates and low complication rates. The results of recent clinical and histologic studies of ridge augmentation with GBR indicated that autogenous bone graft may be a suitable material for staged localized ridge augmentation in both horizontal and vertical augmentations. The main advantages of autogenous grafts are their osteogenic, osteoinductive and osteoconductive capabilities. Because of these qualities, autogenous grafts are considered by many to be the gold standard for bone regeneration

Full description

The GBR Procedure requires to place a barrier between the bone graft and the surrounding soft tissues. This blocks the fast-duplicating connective and epithelial cells from colonizing the regenerating site.

Collagen membranes have been successfully used as a barrier membrane in clinical practice.

They have the advantage of being resorbable and pose less post-operative complications. On the other hand, collagen membranes are not rigid, causing a difficulty in maintaining the vertical height of the particulate bone graft placed onto the ridge.

Alternatively, titanium meshes have been used with success in clinical practice and display both advantages and disadvantages. They provide tenting effect thanks to their rigidity and, being moldable, can be easily given the shape needed to cover the defect.

However they must be removed, not resorbable, require time-consuming shaping and pose complications as flap dehiscence.

Choice of the comparator:

Current studies have shown that using titanium mesh as a barrier to protect the bone graft during GBR can be considered successful in terms of vertical bone gain.

There might be variable in other findings which could be attributed to differences in the methodology, such as using other membranes over the titanium mesh (collagen or PTFE membranes).

Enrollment: 24 estimated patients

Sex: All

Ages: 25 to 60 years old

Volunteers: No Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

• Adult patients with edentulous posterior mandible.
• Both sexes.
• No intraoral soft and hard tissue pathology.
• No systemic condition that contraindicate implant placement.
• Residual alveolar bone height more than 6 mm (7-9 mm) and less than 12 mm.

Exclusion criteria

• Presence of fenestrations or dehiscence of the residual ridge.
• Heavy smokers more than 20 cigarettes per day.
• Patients with systemic disease that may affect normal healing.
• Psychiatric problems
• Disorders to implant are related to history of radiation therapy to the head and neck neoplasia, or bone augmentation to implant site.

Trial design

Primary purpose: Treatment

Allocation: N/A

Interventional model: Single Group Assignment

Masking: None (Open label)

---

24 participants in 1 patient group

autogenous rings with GBR and autogenous graft with ti-mesh

Experimental group

Description:

Augmentation with autogenous onlay ring blocks covered by guided bone regeneration (GBR) using collagen membrane and autogenous bone graft using titanium mesh (ti-mesh) only

Treatment:

Device: autogenous rings with GBR and autogenous graft with ti-mesh