The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  26 (2025)
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2022 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

U-shaped Splitting Technique vs Conventional Bone Grafting in Maxillary Facial Undercut for Dental Implants Placement: A Preliminary Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Ibrahim Abdelmonem Elboghdadi, Mohamed Hassan Elkenawy, Sally Elsayed Abdelsameaa, Nahed Ibrahim Ghoneim

Keywords : Dental implants, Horizontal bone augmentation, Randomized controlled clinical trial, Ridge splitting technique

Citation Information : Elboghdadi IA, Elkenawy MH, Abdelsameaa SE, Ghoneim NI. U-shaped Splitting Technique vs Conventional Bone Grafting in Maxillary Facial Undercut for Dental Implants Placement: A Preliminary Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (12):1245-1254.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3454

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 13-04-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: This prospective randomized clinical trial was designed to compare the apical U-shape splitting technique (AUST) combined with guided bone regeneration (GBR) vs GBR alone for horizontal bone augmentation in maxillary labial undercut areas. Materials and methods: The study included twelve patients with labial undercuts that made their alveolar ridges not able to compass dental implants. They received a total of 14 dental implants in the anterior maxilla where 7 (group I) were placed after AUST with GBR and the other 7 (group II) after the conventional GBR. The clinical and radiographic evaluations were done preoperatively, after surgery, and 6 months later. Facial flap fracture, peri-implant health, ridge width (RW) gain and loss, marginal bone loss (MBL), and implant esthetics were measured. Data were analyzed and compared and for any of the used tests, results were considered statistically significant if p-value ≤ 0.05. Results: For group I, no fracture of the bone flap happened and the gain in RW was significantly higher at 6 months postoperatively. Marginal bone loss was similar for both groups. The total pink esthetic score was significantly higher in group I vs group II (p = 0.024). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it was concluded that AUST combined with GBR was more effective in RW gain than GBR alone and it provided a merit approach for restoring function and esthetics if labial fenestration was unavoidable during implant placement. Clinical significance: Apical U-shape splitting technique for horizontal ridge augmentation is a valuable option for the benefit of patients in clinics who need dental implants and have anterior undercut areas that may lead to fenestration and usually requires onlay bone grafting which is less successful in maintaining the RW.

PDF Share
  1. Oikarinen KS, Sa'ndor GKB, Kainulainen VT, et al. Augmentation of the narrow traumatized anterior alveolar ridge to facilitate dental implant placement. Dent Traumatol 2003;19(1):19–29. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-9657.2003.00125.x.
  2. Motamedian SR, Khojaste M, Khojasteh A. Success rate of implants placed in autogenous bone blocks versus allogenic bone blocks: A systematic literature review. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2016;6(1):78–90. DOI: 10.4103/2231-0746.186143.
  3. Blus C, Szmukler-Moncler S. Split-crest and immediate implant placement with ultra-sonic bone surgery: A 3-year life-table analysis with 230 treated sites. Clin oral Implant Res 2006;17(6):700–707. Doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01206.x.
  4. Friberg B. Bone augmentation for single tooth implants: A review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implantol 2016;9(Suppl 1):S123–S134. PMID: 27314117.
  5. González-García R, Monje F, Moreno C. Alveolar split osteotomy for the treatment of the severe narrow ridge maxillary atrophy: A modified technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;40(1):57–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.03.030.
  6. Bassetti R, Bassetti M, Mericske-Stern R, et al. Piezoelectric Alveolar ridge-splitting technique with simultaneous implant placement: A cohort study with 2-year radiographic results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 2013;28(6):1570–1580. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3174.
  7. de Wijs FL, Cune MS. Immediate labial contour restoration for improved esthetics: A radiographic study on bone splitting in anterior single-tooth replacement. Int J oral Maxillofac Implant 1997;12(5):686–696. PMID: 9337032.
  8. Misch CM, Clinics MS. Implant site development using ridge splitting techniques. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2004;16(1):65–74. DOI: 10.1016/j.coms.2003.10.001.
  9. Tolstunov L. Classification of the alveolar ridge width: Implant-driven treatment considerations for the horizontally deficient alveolar ridges. J Oral Implantol 2014;(40 Spec):365–370. DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-d-14-00023.
  10. Jemt T, Lekholm ULF. Measurements of buccal tissue volumes at single–implant restorations after local bone grafting in maxillas: A 3-year clinical prospective study case series. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5(2):63–70. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00185.x.
  11. Naenni N, Schneider D, Jung RE, et al. Randomized clinical study assessing two membranes for guided bone regeneration of peri-implant bone defects: Clinical and histological outcomes at 6 months. Clin Oral Implant Res 2017;28 (1):1309–1317. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12977.
  12. Merli M, Lombardini F, Esposito M. Vertical ridge augmentation with autogenous bone grafts 3 years after loading: Resorbable barriers versus titanium-reinforced barriers. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 2010;25(4):801–807. PMID: 20657877.
  13. Yao Y, He K, Gong P, et al. U-shaped bone splitting and osteotome techniques for narrow alveolar ridge in implant surgery. Implant Dent 2018;27(4):507–511. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000795.
  14. Wu Q, Yang B, Gao S, et al. Apical U-shape splitting technique for undercut areas of the anterior alveolar ridge: A prospective non-randomized controlled study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;48(3):388–394. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2018.10.004.
  15. Garaicoa C, Suarez F, Fu J-H, et al. Using cone beam computed tomography angle for predicting the outcome of horizontal bone augmentation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17(4):717–723. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12174.
  16. Mombelli A, Oosten MAC, Schürch E, et al. The microbiota associated with successful or failing osseointegrated titanium implants. Oral Microbiol Immunol 1987;2(4):145–151. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-302X.1987.tb00298.x.
  17. Mombelli A, Muumlhle T, Brägger U, et al. Comparison of periodontal and peri-implant probing by depth-force pattern analysis. 1997;8(6):448–454. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080602.x.
  18. Fürhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T, et al. Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns: The pink esthetic score. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16(6):639–644. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01193.x.
  19. Kotz S, Balakrishnan N, Read CB, et al. Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, Volume 1, 2nd Edition: John Wiley & Sons; 2005. pp. 720. ISBN: 978-0-471-74391-0.
  20. Faek A, Elsheikh S, Noureldin M. Evaluation of one-Stage inverted U-Shaped ridge splitting and concurrent implant placement in anterior maxillary undercut defect(a Clinical Trial). Alexandria Dent J 2022. DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2022.106419.1230.
  21. Bassetti MA, Bassetti RG, Bosshardt DD. The alveolar ridge splitting/expansion technique: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implant Res 2016;27(3):310–324. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12537.
  22. Hockers T, Abensur D, Valentini P, et al. The combined use of bioresorbable membranes and xenografts or autografts in the treatment of bone defects around implants. A study in beagle dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10(6):487–498. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100607.x.
  23. Lindquist LW, Rockler B, Carlsson GE. Bone resorption around fixtures in edentulous patients treated with mandibular fixed tissue-integrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1988;59(1):59–63. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(88)90109-6.
  24. Karoussis IK, Muller S, Salvi GE, et al. Association between periodontal and peri-implant conditions: A 10-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15(1):1–7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.00982.x.
  25. Chaytor DV, Zarb GA, Schmitt A, et al. The longitudinal effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants. The Toronto study: Bone level changes. Int J periodontics Restor Dent 1991;11:113–125. PMID: 1938184.
  26. Lekholm U, Ericsson I, Adell R, et al. The condition of the soft tissues at tooth and fixture abutments supporting fixed bridges A microbiological and histological study. J Clin Periodontol. 1986;13(6):558–562. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1986.tb00847.x.
  27. Jepsen S, Rühling A, Jepsen K, et al. Progressive peri-implantitis. Incidence and prediction of peri-implant attachment loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7(2):133–142. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070207.x.
  28. Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, et al. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-Submerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2000;71(9):1412–1424. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2000.71.9.1412.
  29. Lai HC, Zhang ZY, Wang F, et al. Evaluation of soft-tissue alteration around implant-supported single-tooth restoration in the anterior maxilla: The pink esthetic score. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19(6):560–564. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01522.x.
  30. Meijndert L, Meijer HJA, Stellingsma K, et al. Evaluation of aesthetics of implant-supported single-tooth replacements using different bone augmentation procedures: A prospective randomized clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18(6):715–719. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01415.x.
  31. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, et al. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1(1):11–25. PMID: 3527955.
  32. Galindo-Moreno P, León-Cano A, Ortega-Oller I, et al. Marginal bone loss as success criterion in implant dentistry: Beyond 2 mm. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26(4):e28–e34. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12324.
  33. Bansal N, Prasad Dk, Shetty M, et al. Crestal bone preservation: A review of different approaches for successful implant therapy. Indian J Dent Res 2011;22(2):317. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.84311.
  34. Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, et al. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded submerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2000;71(9):1412–1424. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2000.71.9.1412.
  35. Sunitha VR, Ramakrishnan T, Kumar SS, et al. Soft tissue preservation and crestal bone loss around single-tooth implants. J Oral Implantol 2008;34(4):223–229. DOI: 10.1563/0.907.1.
  36. Mounir M, Beheiri G, El-Beialy W. Assessment of marginal bone loss using full thickness versus partial thickness flaps for alveolar ridge splitting and immediate implant placement in the anterior maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;43(11):1373–1380. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.05.021.
  37. Hänggi MP, Hänggi DC, Schoolfield JD, et al. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. Part I: A retrospective radiographic evaluation in humans comparing two non-submerged implant designs with different machined collar lengths. J Periodontol 2005;76(5):791–802. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2005.76.5.791.
  38. Misch CE, Strong JT, Bidez MW. Dental Implant Prosthetics, (Ed). A Scientific Rationale for Dental Implant Design, 2nd edition. Mosby; 1999. pp. 340–371.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.