Clinical Research Directory

Autogenous and Xenograft Bone Mix in Alveolar Ridge Reconstruction

Following a tooth extraction, the loss of alveolar bone is inevitable. As the site remodels, the alveolar ridge naturally shrinks in both height and width (Schropp et al., 2003). This loss of bone volume can make dental implant placement challenging, frequently requiring bone grafting procedures to rebuild the necessary foundation for the implant.Guided bone regeneration (GBR) stands as a leading strategy for repairing osseous defects. When employing particulate bone grafts, this approach typically depends on the application of barrier membranes to promote the regeneration of bone tissue (Retzepi \& Donos, 2010).Various regenerative approaches have been proposed to restore ridge width: among these, guided bone regeneration (GBR) using a combination of autogenous bone and xenogenic grafts has gained widespread acceptance due to its biological properties and ability to achieve stable dimensional augmentation (Urban et al., 2013).Historically, various methods have been implemented to enhance both the volume and structural integrity of newly formed bone. An ideal graft material must act as an effective osteoconductive scaffold, facilitating cellular ingrowth while preserving its dimensional stability. Although autogenous bone is still considered the gold standard for these procedures, it is prone to significant volumetric resorption as time progresses (Gulinelli et al., 2017).To counteract volume loss during the remodeling process, researchers have proposed combining autogenous bone with allogenic, xenogenic, or alloplastic substitutes (Chappuis et al., 2017). This composite grafting strategy is designed to enhance both the structural stability and overall quality of the augmented site, while simultaneously decreasing surgical morbidity by minimizing the volume of autogenous bone required for harvest (Mendoza-Azpur et al., 2019). Even though composite grafts are routinely employed in clinical practice, the ideal proportion of autogenous bone to xenogenic material in guided bone regeneration (GBR) protocols has yet to be definitively established.

Comparison of Three Autogenous Bone and Xenograft Ratios for Horizontal Ridge Augmentation

This study will compare three different ratios of autogenous bone and xenograft used for horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation in patients with insufficient bone width for dental implant placement. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive one of three bone graft mixtures: 50% autogenous bone and 50% xenograft, 75% autogenous bone and 25% xenograft, or 25% autogenous bone and 75% xenograft. The aim of the study is to determine whether the different bone graft ratios result in different amounts of horizontal bone gain. Bone changes will be assessed clinically and using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) during follow-up.

Comparison of Two Autogenous Bone and Xenograft Ratios for Horizontal Ridge Augmentation

This pilot randomized controlled clinical study will evaluate horizontal bone gain in patients with deficient alveolar ridges requiring horizontal ridge augmentation. The study will compare two different ratios of autogenous bone and xenograft used for bone augmentation. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive either a 50:50 mixture of autogenous bone and xenograft or a 75:25 mixture of autogenous bone and xenograft. Bone augmentation will be performed using the sausage technique with a collagen membrane. Changes in horizontal ridge dimensions will be evaluated radiographically using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) before treatment and during follow-up. The primary outcome will be horizontal bone gain at 6 months after augmentation.

ALVEOLAR RIDGE SPLIT FOR FULL-ARCH MAXILLA

This retrospective study evaluated the use of the alveolar ridge split (ARS) technique in patients with a completely edentulous upper jaw who received implant-supported fixed prostheses. The ARS technique is used when the jawbone is too narrow to allow conventional implant placement. In this study, patients with insufficient maxillary ridge width underwent one-stage ARS with simultaneous implant placement, while patients with adequate ridge width received conventional implant placement without ridge splitting. The study compared the two treatment approaches in terms of implant survival, marginal bone loss around the implants, and implant success, including biological and prosthetic complications. A total of 47 patients with 332 dental implants were evaluated. The overall implant survival rate was 99.2%, and no significant difference was observed between the ARS and conventional implant groups. Marginal bone loss and implant success rates were also similar between the groups. The findings suggest that the alveolar ridge split technique may be a suitable option for implant-supported full-arch rehabilitation in carefully selected patients with a completely edentulous maxilla and insufficient alveolar ridge width.

Carrot Technique Versus Guided Bone Regeneration for Horizontal Ridge Deficiency in the Maxillary Esthetic Zone

This randomized controlled clinical trial aims to compare the effectiveness of the Carrot Technique and Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) for the management of horizontal alveolar ridge deficiency in patients requiring implant placement in the maxillary esthetic zone. Twenty patients will be randomly allocated into two equal groups. Clinical outcomes including implant stability and soft tissue healing, as well as radiographic outcomes including alveolar ridge width, bone density, and marginal bone loss, will be evaluated using clinical examinations and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) during a 12-month follow-up period..

Comparison of Split Box and Split Bone Block Techniques in Horizontal Ridge Augmentation

Horizontal alveolar ridge deficiencies may prevent the placement of dental implants and often require bone augmentation procedures before implant treatment. Two techniques commonly used for horizontal ridge augmentation are the Split Box Technique and the Split Bone Block Technique. This retrospective study included patients treated at Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry between January 2014 and January 2026. Radiographic records were reviewed to evaluate bone gain after augmentation and the stability of the augmented bone during long-term follow-up. Implant survival after prosthetic rehabilitation was also assessed. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of the Split Box Technique and the Split Bone Block Technique in terms of bone gain, bone stability, and implant survival.