The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Vertical Bone Augmentation with GBR Pocket Technique: Surgical Procedure and Preliminary Results

Stefano Scavia, Rachele Roncucci, Edoardo Bianco, Luca Mirabelli, Alla Bader, Marcello Maddalone

Keywords : Bone defect, Guided bone regeneration, Implantology, Occlusion, Periodontal ligament, Polytetrafluoroethylene membrane

Citation Information : Scavia S, Roncucci R, Bianco E, Mirabelli L, Bader A, Maddalone M. Vertical Bone Augmentation with GBR Pocket Technique: Surgical Procedure and Preliminary Results. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (12):1370-1376.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3243

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 10-05-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: Nowadays, guided bone regeneration (GBR) is a predictable technique in both vertical and horizontal bone defects treatment. GBR Pocket Technique is an original surgical approach adopted in order to reduce the invasiveness of traditional procedures. The aim of this work is to describe the surgical procedure of GBR Pocket Technique in vertical bone augmentation and to compare the clinical outcomes of this technique with the results reported in literature of vertical bone augmentation and crestal bone remodeling achieved after 1 year after implants insertion. Materials and methods: Twenty-eight patients were recruited for this study and received 28 GBR procedures in the posterior region due to vertical and horizontal defects. A 50/50 mixture of autologous bone component and heterologous bone of equine origin was then made with the use of a bone scraper tunnel with internal reservoir. A PTFE-d membrane with titanium reinforcement was then fixed to the residual bone structure with screws in order to maintain the graft in place. Radiographic checks were made before graft procedures and implants insertion, then 6 months later and 1 year after implants placement. Results: The average bone augmentation after surgery seems to be aligned, or even better, than the average reported in literature with alternative surgical approach; in addition, the mean crestal remodeling after 1 year and the rate of complications are aligned with other previous surgical techniques with a vertical bone augmentation of 8.78 mm ± SD 2.39 and a bone remodeling after 1 year of 0.59 mm ± SD 0.29. Conclusions: The advantages of this technique are preservation of blood circulation and consequently risk of flap necrosis, dehiscence, and graft exposure. This technique also reduces mucosal healing times even if it takes longer surgical time. Clinical significance: GBR Pocket Technique is the use of a minimal-invasive surgical wound to reduce patient morbidity and compliance.


PDF Share
  1. Soni R, Priya A, Yadav H, et al. Multilayered platelet-rich fibrin as a barrier membrane in guided bone regeneration with simultaneous implant placement: a 3-year follow-up. World J Dent 2020;11(4):328–331. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1738.
  2. Cortese M, Pigato G, Casiraghi G, et al. Evaluation of the oropharyngeal airway space in class II malocclusion treated with mandibular activator: a retrospective study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020;21(6):666–672. PMID: 33025936.
  3. Bianco E, Nanussi A, Bellotti D, et al. Clinical and functional analyses of the musculoskeletal balance with oral electromyography and stabilometric platform in athletes of different disciplines. World J Dent 2020;11(3):166–171. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1722.
  4. D'Errico G, Bianco E, Tregambi E, et al. Usage of Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 and ATCC PTA 5289 in the treatment of the patient with black stains. World J Dent 2021;12(1):32–37. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1800.
  5. Maddalone M, Bellinzona A, Lanza M, et al. Intentional replantation of mandibular molars [Reimpianti dentari nei molari mandibolari]. Dent Cadmos 2008;76(9):23–32.
  6. Bianco E, Calvelli C, Citterio CL, et al. Evaluation with micro-CT of the canal seal made with two different bioceramic cements: guttaflow bioseal and bioroot RCS. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020;21(4):359–366. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2816.
  7. Scavia S, Roncucci R, Bianco E, et al. Minimal invasive flapless piezotome alveolar crest horizontal split technique: preliminary results. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020;21(1):28–35. PMID: 32381797.
  8. Maddalone M, Nanussi A, Varisco M, et al. Electromyographic evaluation of masticatory muscles in a young patient with crossbite treated with rapid palatal expander: a case report. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020;21(11):1279–1283. PMID: 33850076.
  9. Porcaro G, Busa A, Bianco E, et al. Use of a partial-thickness flap for Guided Bone regeneration in the upper jaw. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(12):1117–1121. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2186.
  10. Maddalone M, Bianco E, Nanussi A, et al. Treatment of temporomandibular disorders of muscular origin with a silicon oral device (Alifix®): electromyographic analysis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019;20(12)1367–1374. PMID: 32381834.
  11. Lang NP, Berglundh T, Heitz-Mayfield LJ, et al. Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding implant survival and complications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19(Suppl):150–154. PMID: 15635955.
  12. Ashman A. Ridge preservation: important buzzwords in dentistry. Gen Dent 2000;48(3):304–312. PMID: 11199597.
  13. Urban IA, Montero E, Monje A, et al. Effectiveness of vertical ridge augmentation interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 2019;46(Suppl 21):319–339. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13061.
  14. Ronda M, Rebaudi A, Torelli L, et al. Expanded vs dense polytetrafluoroethylene membranes in vertical ridge augmentation around dental implants: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Impl Res 2014;25(7):859–866. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12157.
  15. Simion M, Fontana F, Raperini G, et al. Vertical ridge augmentation by expanded-polytetrafluoroethylene membrane and a combination of intraoral autogenous graft and deproteinized anorganic bovine bone (Bio Oss). Clin Oral Impl Res 2007;18(5):620–629. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01389.x.
  16. Maddalone M, Mirabelli L, Venino PM, et al. Long-term stability of autologous bone graft of intraoral origin after lateral sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant placement. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20(5):713–721. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12649.
  17. Bianco E. Factors influencing immediate maxillary dental implant placement and bone resorption: a review of the literature and an outlook on the clinical possibilities Dent Med Probl 2016;53(3);408–412. DOI: 10.17219/dmp/63185.
  18. Milinkovic I, Cordaro L. Are there specific indications for the different alveolar bone augmentation procedures for implant placement? A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;43(5):606–625. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2013.12.004.
  19. Browaeys H, Bouvry P, De Bruyn H. A literature review on biomaterials in sinus augmentation procedures. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2007;9(3):166–177. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2007.00050.x.
  20. Wheeler SL. Sinus augmentation for dental implants: the use of alloplastic materials. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;55(11):1287–1293. DOI: 10.1016/s0278-2391(97)90186-5.
  21. Dinopoulos H, Dimitriou R, Giannoudis PV. Bone graft substitutes: What are the options? Surgeon 2012;10:230–239. DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2012.04.001.
  22. Keestra JA, Barry O, Jong Ld, et al. Long-term effects of vertical bone augmentation: a systematic review. J Appl Oral Sci 2016;24(1): 3–17. DOI: 10.1590/1678-775720150357.
  23. Starch-Jensen T, Becktor JP. Maxillary alveolar ridge expansion with split-crest technique compared with lateral ridge augmentation with autogenous bone block graft: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2019;10(4):e2. DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2019.10402.
  24. Waechter J, Leite FR, Nascimento GG, et al. The split crest technique and dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;46(1):116–128. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2016.08.017.
  25. Maddalone M, Mirabelli L, Breschigliaro S, et al. Radiographic evaluation of the bone remodeling on tilted osseointegrated implants: follow-up at 1 year. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020;21(4): 463–470. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2799.
  26. Bianco E, Maddalone M, Porcaro G, et al. Treatment of osteoradionecrosis of the jaw with ozone in the form of oil-based gel: 1-year follow-up. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019;20(2):270–276. PMID: 31058646.
  27. Santagata M, Rienzo D, d'Amato S, et al. Bone density evaluation in vivo after installation of implants using an osteotome technique: case report. J Dentists 2015;3:44–49. DOI: 10.12974/2311-8695.2015.03.02.3.
  28. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. CONSORT Int J Surg 2012;10(1):28–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.10.001.
  29. Guimarães GMMF, Bernini GF, Grandizoli DK, et al. Evaluation of bone availability for grafts in different donor sites, through computed tomography. J Appl Oral Sci 2020;28:e20190435. DOI: 10.1590/1678-7757-2019-0435.
  30. Goyushov S, Dursun E, Orhan K, et al. Three-dimensional calculation of sinus augmentation volume after maxillary sinus floor elevation. Cumhuriyet Dent J 2021;24(2). DOI: 10.7126/cumudj.858177.
  31. Karadayi Yüzükcü AE, Yerliyurt K. How important are the implant inclination and the infrastructure material used in implant supported fixed prostheses? Cumhuriyet Dent J 2021;24(4):395–402. DOI: 10.7126/cumudj.1009405.
  32. Scortecci G, Odin G. Pushing back the limits of implant dentistry by combining anatomo-physiological root-form implants and diskimplants with stem cell activation. J Dent 2019;7:27–37. https://doi.org/10.12974/2311-8695.2019.07.5.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.