Horizontal ridge augmentation of the atrophic maxilla using pericardium membrane versus titanium mesh: A clinical and histologic randomized comparative study
- Autores: Ahmed Wafaa Abdel Azeem Bughdadi Abaza, Waleed Mohammed Abbas, Dina Mohammed Abdel Khalik, Nevine Hassan Kheir El Din
- Localización: The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, ISSN-e 0882-2786, Vol. 38, Nº. 3, 2023, págs. 451-461
- Idioma: inglés
- Enlaces
-
Resumen
Purpose: To compare the outcomes of maxillary horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation in the esthetic area, using either pericardium membrane or titanium mesh, clinically, radiographically, and histologically.
Materials and Methods: A randomized clinical study was performed on 20 patients with insufficient edentulous ridge width. Subjects were equally allocated into two groups. For both groups, autogenous tenting bone blocks were harvested from the symphysis area. Bone block was covered by an equal mixture (1:1) of particulate graft of inorganic bovine bone and autogenous bone matrix. The barrier membrane used in group 1 (PM) was bovine pericardium membrane, and in group 2 (TM), it was titanium mesh.
Results: Both groups had a clinically statistically significant difference in buccopalatal alveolar ridge dimension between baseline and after 4 months. Radiographically, at both intervals, there was no significant difference in 3D volume between both groups. Within both groups, there was a significant volume increase postoperatively. Histologically, the PM group had a lower area fraction of the mean value of newly formed bone than the TM group, yet the difference was not significant. The PM group had a higher mean osteocyte count than the TM group, but again, the difference was not significant.
Conclusion: Guided bone regeneration using either pericardium membrane or titanium mesh is a reliable treatment for horizontal augmentation of insufficient maxillary alveolar ridge width. No significant differences between both treatment modalities were noticed clinically and histologically. However, percentage change in radiographic volumetric measurements using TM was significantly higher than that of PM.
