Search

Background: Implant rehabilitation of posterior mandibular defects is frequently associated to a horizontal bone loss. There exist several regenerative techniques to supply this bone deficiency, one of which is the Periosteal Pocket Flap Technique (PPF) proposed by Steigmann et al. to treat small horizontal bone defects. The present study proposes a modification of this technique based on the concurrent use of PPF with the use of xenogeneic and autologous bone and Plasma Rich in Growth Factors (PRGF). The aim of this study is to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of the PPF with the use of xenogeneic and autologous bone and PRGF in comparison with conventional Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) procedures., Methods: Nine patients were enroled in the study (7 women and 2 men, mean age: 53 ± 2.74 years) and allocated to PPF or GBR. In both groups implant placement was performed simultaneously to bone regeneration. Preoperative CBCT scans were performed for each patient. Surgical time and postoperative pain were recorded, as well as tissue healing. Moreover, horizontal bone gain (mm), graft surface area (mm2) and graft volume (mm3) were evaluated., Results: Nine surgeries were performed: 6 PPF and 3 GBR. Regarding clinical outcomes, operative time was significative greater in GBR group than in PPF group (51.67 ± 3.51 min vs. 37 ± 5.69 min; p = 0.008). Postoperative pain was higher in GBR compared to PPF (p = 0.011). Regarding radiographical results, there were not significant differences in horizontal bone gain (PPF: 9.43 ± 1.8 mm; GBR: 9.28 ± 0.42 mm), surface area (PPF: 693.33 ± 118.73 mm 2 ; GBR: 655.61 ± 102.43 mm 2 ), and volume (PPF: 394.97 ± 178.72 mm 3 ; GBR: 261.66 ± 118 mm 3 ) between groups., Conclusions: This prospective study demonstrates that the combination of autograft/xenograft and PRGF in PPF technique is a simpler, cheaper, and faster technique than GBR technique for achieving moderate lateral bone augmentation in implant treatment. Future randomised clinical studies are needed to confirm the results., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier GmbH.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: Alveolar bone resorption after dental extraction frequently leads to situations in which long-term function and esthetic success of rehabilitations with dental implants is a challenge. Socket shield has been described as an alternative technique to maintain the alveolar ridge when placing immediate implants. The aim of this review is to evaluate the medium- and long-term clinical outcomes of the socket shield technique in human studies., Material and Methods: This review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search was conducted in four databases: (1) The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed) via Ovid; (2) Web of Science (WOS); (3) SCOPUS; and (4) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The Cochrane Collaboration tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool were used to assess the quality of evidence in the studies reviewed., Results: Six articles were included in this review. The studies analysed showed lower rates of horizontal and vertical alveolar bone resorption, better maintenance of the buccal plate, less marginal bone loss and better esthetic results than simple placement of immediate implants. However, a lack of homogeneity was found in evaluation methods of the different outcomes, surgical procedures and prosthetic management., Conclusions: Based on the results of this review, it is possible to suggest that socket shield technique could be a good alternative in terms of alveolar bone maintenance, marginal bone stability and aesthetic outcomes in immediate implant treatment. However, it is not possible to recommend this technique as an alternative treatment with the same long-terms predictability as conventional immediate implants., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier GmbH.. All rights reserved.)