Evaluation of the Effect of Bone Grafts in Different Sizes and Forms Used During Alveolar Split Osteotomy on the Implant Stability

Ugur Mercan; Suheyla Kaya

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijcoms.20200602.13

| Peer-Reviewed

Evaluation of the Effect of Bone Grafts in Different Sizes and Forms Used During Alveolar Split Osteotomy on the Implant Stability

Ugur Mercan, Suheyla Kaya

Published in International Journal of Clinical Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (Volume 6, Issue 2)

Received: 17 June 2020 Accepted: 3 July 2020 Published: 13 July 2020

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effects of filling bone gap between implants with bone graft materials of different sizes and forms of primary stability after alveolar split osteotomy process. Materials and Methods: Materials and Methods: Fourty fresh ribs were divided into four main groups. The groups created are based on the xenograft material of different sizes and forms; group Putty (P): Group applied Putty (form) graft (granule size 0.25– 1 mm), group Small (S): Group applied Small particle graft (granule size 0.25– 1 mm) group, group Large (L): Group applied Large particle graft (granule size 1– 2 mm), control group (C): classified as group where no bone graft was applied. Bone expansion was performed using piezosurgery. In all groups, two implants were inserted into the each rib after alveolar crest expansions. The gap between implants (outside the control group) was filled with bone graft materials of different forms and sizes (large, small, putty). The primary stability values of the implants were measured with in the direction of the bucco-lingual (BL) and mesio-distal (MD) by the ISQ (implant stability quotient) and compared between groups. Results: The primary stability values measured in the BL direction are higher than the primary stability values measured in the MD direction and values are statistically significant difference. There is no statistically significant difference between the 1st and 2nd implants in each group (C, P, S, L) for their measured values in both BL direction and MD direction. Conclusion: According to the ISQ values used to evaluate primary stability, it was found that the graft materials of different sizes used in our study did not cause a significant difference for the primary stability of the implants.

Published in	International Journal of Clinical Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (Volume 6, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijcoms.20200602.13
Page(s)	34-39
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Bone Graft, Alveolar Ridge Split, Implant, Primary Stability

References

[1]	McAllister, B. S. and K. Haghighat (2007). Bone Augmentation Techniques. Journal of Periodontology, 78 (3): p. 377-396.
[2]	Merheb, J., et al. (2010). Influence of bony defects on implant stability. Clinical oral implants research, 21 (9): p. 919-923.
[3]	Moro, A., et al. (2017). Alveolar ridge split technique using piezosurgery with specially designed tips. BioMed research international,. 2017.
[4]	Scipioni, A., G. B. Bruschi, and G. Calesini (1994). The edentulous ridge expansion technique: a five-year study. International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry,. 14 (5).
[5]	González-García, R., F. Monje, and C. Moreno (2011). Alveolar split osteotomy for the treatment of the severe narrow ridge maxillary atrophy: a modified technique. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 40 (1): p. 57-64.
[6]	Stacchi, C., et al. (2013). Changes in implant stability using different site preparation techniques: twist drills versus piezosurgery. A single-blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clinical implant dentistry and related research,. 15 (2): p. 188-197.
[7]	Vercellotti, T., S. De Paoli, and M. Nevins (2001). The piezoelectric bony window osteotomy and sinus membrane elevation: introduction of a new technique for simplification of the sinus augmentation procedure. International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry. 21 (6).
[8]	Vercellotti, T. (2004). Technological characteristics and clinical indications of piezoelectric bone surgery. Minerva stomatologica. 53 (5): p. 207-214.
[9]	Tolstunov, L., et al. (2019). Bone augmentation techniques for horizontal and vertical alveolar ridge deficiency in oral implantology. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinics. 31 (2): p. 163-191.
[10]	Lioubavina-Hack, N., N. P. Lang, and T. Karring (2006). Significance of primary stability for osseointegration of dental implants. Clinical oral implants research. 17 (3): p. 244-250.
[11]	Meredith, N 1998. Assessment of implant stability as a prognostic determinant. International Journal of Prosthodontics. 11 (5).
[12]	Bilhan, H., et al. (2010). Influence of surgical technique, implant shape and diameter on the primary stability in cancellous bone. Journal of oral rehabilitation. 37 (12): p. 900-907.
[13]	Sennerby, L. and J. Roos (1998). Surgical determinants of clinical success of osseointegrated oral implants: a review of the literature. International Journal of Prosthodontics. 11 (5).
[14]	Tanaka, K., et al. (2018). Relationship between cortical bone thickness and implant stability at the time of surgery and secondary stability after osseointegration measured using resonance frequency analysis. Journal of periodontal & implant science. 48 (6): p. 360-372.
[15]	Zarb, G. A. and T. Albrektsson (1985) Tissue-integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Quintessence Pub Co.
[16]	Ersanli, S., et al. (2005). Resonance frequency analysis of one-stage dental implant stability during the osseointegration period. Journal of periodontology. 76 (7): p. 1066-1071.
[17]	Östman, P.-O., et al. (2006). Resonance frequency analysis measurements of implants at placement surgery. International Journal of Prosthodontics. 19 (1).
[18]	Yim, H.-j., et al. (2019) Primary stability of implants with peri-implant bone defects of various widths: an in vitro investigation. Journal of periodontal & implant science. 49 (1): p. 39-46.
[19]	Atalay, B., et al. (2013). Immediate implant placement without bone grafting: a retrospective study of 110 cases with 5 years of follow-up. Implant dentistry. 22 (4): p. 360-365.
[20]	Santos, P. L., et al. (2013). Bone substitutes for peri-implant defects of postextraction implants. International journal of biomaterials. 2013.
[21]	Viswambaran, M., et al. (2014), Clinical evaluation of immediate implants using different types of bone augmentation materials. medical journal armed forces india. 70 (2): p. 154-162.
[22]	Barone, A., et al. (2008). Xenograft versus extraction alone for ridge preservation after tooth removal: a clinical and histomorphometric study. Journal of periodontology. 79 (8): p. 1370-1377.
[23]	Jun, S. H., et al. (2018). The influence of bone graft procedures on primary stability and bone change of implants placed in fresh extraction sockets. Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery. 40 (1): p. 8.
[24]	Mc Glumphy EA, L. P. (2003). Contemporary implant dentistry, in Contemporary oral and maxillofacial surgery., E. E. Peterson LJ, Hupp JR,, Editor. Mosby: St. Louis. p. 305-342.
[25]	Bassetti, M. A., R. G. Bassetti, and D. D. Bosshardt (2016). The alveolar ridge splitting/expansion technique: a systematic review. Clinical oral implants research. 27 (3): p. 310-324.
[26]	Ella, B., et al. (2014). Mandibular ridge expansion using a horizontal bone-splitting technique and synthetic bone substitute: an alternative to bone block grafting? International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 29 (1).
[27]	Tang, Y. L., et al. (2015). Ridge expansion alone or in combination with guided bone regeneration to facilitate implant placement in narrow alveolar ridges: a retrospective study. Clinical oral implants research. 26 (2): p. 204-211.
[28]	Han, J. Y., et al. (2011). The effects of bone grafting material and a collagen membrane in the ridge splitting technique: an experimental study in dogs. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 22 (12): p. 1391-1398.
[29]	Stricker, A., et al. (2014). Evaluation of a new experimental model to study bone healing after ridge expansion with simultaneous implant placement–a pilot study in minipigs. Clinical oral implants research. 25 (11): p. 1265-1272.
[30]	Jensen, S. S., et al. (2015). Influence of particle size of deproteinized bovine bone mineral on new bone formation and implant stability after simultaneous sinus floor elevation: A histomorphometric study in minipigs. Clinical implant dentistry and related research. 17 (2): p. 274-285.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Ugur Mercan, Suheyla Kaya. (2020). Evaluation of the Effect of Bone Grafts in Different Sizes and Forms Used During Alveolar Split Osteotomy on the Implant Stability. International Journal of Clinical Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 6(2), 34-39. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcoms.20200602.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Ugur Mercan; Suheyla Kaya. Evaluation of the Effect of Bone Grafts in Different Sizes and Forms Used During Alveolar Split Osteotomy on the Implant Stability. Int. J. Clin. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020, 6(2), 34-39. doi: 10.11648/j.ijcoms.20200602.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Ugur Mercan, Suheyla Kaya. Evaluation of the Effect of Bone Grafts in Different Sizes and Forms Used During Alveolar Split Osteotomy on the Implant Stability. Int J Clin Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;6(2):34-39. doi: 10.11648/j.ijcoms.20200602.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijcoms.20200602.13,
  author = {Ugur Mercan and Suheyla Kaya},
  title = {Evaluation of the Effect of Bone Grafts in Different Sizes and Forms Used During Alveolar Split Osteotomy on the Implant Stability},
  journal = {International Journal of Clinical Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery},
  volume = {6},
  number = {2},
  pages = {34-39},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijcoms.20200602.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcoms.20200602.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijcoms.20200602.13},
  abstract = {Objective: To compare the effects of filling bone gap between implants with bone graft materials of different sizes and forms of primary stability after alveolar split osteotomy process. Materials and Methods: Materials and Methods: Fourty fresh ribs were divided into four main groups. The groups created are based on the xenograft material of different sizes and forms; group Putty (P): Group applied Putty (form) graft (granule size 0.25– 1 mm), group Small (S): Group applied Small particle graft (granule size 0.25– 1 mm) group, group Large (L): Group applied Large particle graft (granule size 1– 2 mm), control group (C): classified as group where no bone graft was applied. Bone expansion was performed using piezosurgery. In all groups, two implants were inserted into the each rib after alveolar crest expansions. The gap between implants (outside the control group) was filled with bone graft materials of different forms and sizes (large, small, putty). The primary stability values of the implants were measured with in the direction of the bucco-lingual (BL) and mesio-distal (MD) by the ISQ (implant stability quotient) and compared between groups. Results: The primary stability values measured in the BL direction are higher than the primary stability values measured in the MD direction and values are statistically significant difference. There is no statistically significant difference between the 1st and 2nd implants in each group (C, P, S, L) for their measured values in both BL direction and MD direction. Conclusion: According to the ISQ values used to evaluate primary stability, it was found that the graft materials of different sizes used in our study did not cause a significant difference for the primary stability of the implants.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Evaluation of the Effect of Bone Grafts in Different Sizes and Forms Used During Alveolar Split Osteotomy on the Implant Stability
AU  - Ugur Mercan
AU  - Suheyla Kaya
Y1  - 2020/07/13
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcoms.20200602.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijcoms.20200602.13
T2  - International Journal of Clinical Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
JF  - International Journal of Clinical Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
JO  - International Journal of Clinical Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
SP  - 34
EP  - 39
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2472-1344
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcoms.20200602.13
AB  - Objective: To compare the effects of filling bone gap between implants with bone graft materials of different sizes and forms of primary stability after alveolar split osteotomy process. Materials and Methods: Materials and Methods: Fourty fresh ribs were divided into four main groups. The groups created are based on the xenograft material of different sizes and forms; group Putty (P): Group applied Putty (form) graft (granule size 0.25– 1 mm), group Small (S): Group applied Small particle graft (granule size 0.25– 1 mm) group, group Large (L): Group applied Large particle graft (granule size 1– 2 mm), control group (C): classified as group where no bone graft was applied. Bone expansion was performed using piezosurgery. In all groups, two implants were inserted into the each rib after alveolar crest expansions. The gap between implants (outside the control group) was filled with bone graft materials of different forms and sizes (large, small, putty). The primary stability values of the implants were measured with in the direction of the bucco-lingual (BL) and mesio-distal (MD) by the ISQ (implant stability quotient) and compared between groups. Results: The primary stability values measured in the BL direction are higher than the primary stability values measured in the MD direction and values are statistically significant difference. There is no statistically significant difference between the 1st and 2nd implants in each group (C, P, S, L) for their measured values in both BL direction and MD direction. Conclusion: According to the ISQ values used to evaluate primary stability, it was found that the graft materials of different sizes used in our study did not cause a significant difference for the primary stability of the implants.
VL  - 6
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Ugur Mercan

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Okan University, Istanbul, Turkey
Suheyla Kaya

Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Okan University, Istanbul, Turkey

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Ugur Mercan, Suheyla Kaya. (2020). Evaluation of the Effect of Bone Grafts in Different Sizes and Forms Used During Alveolar Split Osteotomy on the Implant Stability. International Journal of Clinical Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 6(2), 34-39. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcoms.20200602.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Ugur Mercan; Suheyla Kaya. Evaluation of the Effect of Bone Grafts in Different Sizes and Forms Used During Alveolar Split Osteotomy on the Implant Stability. Int. J. Clin. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020, 6(2), 34-39. doi: 10.11648/j.ijcoms.20200602.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Ugur Mercan, Suheyla Kaya. Evaluation of the Effect of Bone Grafts in Different Sizes and Forms Used During Alveolar Split Osteotomy on the Implant Stability. Int J Clin Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;6(2):34-39. doi: 10.11648/j.ijcoms.20200602.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijcoms.20200602.13,
  author = {Ugur Mercan and Suheyla Kaya},
  title = {Evaluation of the Effect of Bone Grafts in Different Sizes and Forms Used During Alveolar Split Osteotomy on the Implant Stability},
  journal = {International Journal of Clinical Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery},
  volume = {6},
  number = {2},
  pages = {34-39},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijcoms.20200602.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcoms.20200602.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijcoms.20200602.13},
  abstract = {Objective: To compare the effects of filling bone gap between implants with bone graft materials of different sizes and forms of primary stability after alveolar split osteotomy process. Materials and Methods: Materials and Methods: Fourty fresh ribs were divided into four main groups. The groups created are based on the xenograft material of different sizes and forms; group Putty (P): Group applied Putty (form) graft (granule size 0.25– 1 mm), group Small (S): Group applied Small particle graft (granule size 0.25– 1 mm) group, group Large (L): Group applied Large particle graft (granule size 1– 2 mm), control group (C): classified as group where no bone graft was applied. Bone expansion was performed using piezosurgery. In all groups, two implants were inserted into the each rib after alveolar crest expansions. The gap between implants (outside the control group) was filled with bone graft materials of different forms and sizes (large, small, putty). The primary stability values of the implants were measured with in the direction of the bucco-lingual (BL) and mesio-distal (MD) by the ISQ (implant stability quotient) and compared between groups. Results: The primary stability values measured in the BL direction are higher than the primary stability values measured in the MD direction and values are statistically significant difference. There is no statistically significant difference between the 1st and 2nd implants in each group (C, P, S, L) for their measured values in both BL direction and MD direction. Conclusion: According to the ISQ values used to evaluate primary stability, it was found that the graft materials of different sizes used in our study did not cause a significant difference for the primary stability of the implants.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Evaluation of the Effect of Bone Grafts in Different Sizes and Forms Used During Alveolar Split Osteotomy on the Implant Stability
AU  - Ugur Mercan
AU  - Suheyla Kaya
Y1  - 2020/07/13
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcoms.20200602.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijcoms.20200602.13
T2  - International Journal of Clinical Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
JF  - International Journal of Clinical Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
JO  - International Journal of Clinical Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
SP  - 34
EP  - 39
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2472-1344
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcoms.20200602.13
AB  - Objective: To compare the effects of filling bone gap between implants with bone graft materials of different sizes and forms of primary stability after alveolar split osteotomy process. Materials and Methods: Materials and Methods: Fourty fresh ribs were divided into four main groups. The groups created are based on the xenograft material of different sizes and forms; group Putty (P): Group applied Putty (form) graft (granule size 0.25– 1 mm), group Small (S): Group applied Small particle graft (granule size 0.25– 1 mm) group, group Large (L): Group applied Large particle graft (granule size 1– 2 mm), control group (C): classified as group where no bone graft was applied. Bone expansion was performed using piezosurgery. In all groups, two implants were inserted into the each rib after alveolar crest expansions. The gap between implants (outside the control group) was filled with bone graft materials of different forms and sizes (large, small, putty). The primary stability values of the implants were measured with in the direction of the bucco-lingual (BL) and mesio-distal (MD) by the ISQ (implant stability quotient) and compared between groups. Results: The primary stability values measured in the BL direction are higher than the primary stability values measured in the MD direction and values are statistically significant difference. There is no statistically significant difference between the 1st and 2nd implants in each group (C, P, S, L) for their measured values in both BL direction and MD direction. Conclusion: According to the ISQ values used to evaluate primary stability, it was found that the graft materials of different sizes used in our study did not cause a significant difference for the primary stability of the implants.
VL  - 6
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download