Aviso: para depositar documentos, por favor, inicia sesión e identifícate con tu cuenta de correo institucional de la UCM con el botón MI CUENTA UCM. No emplees la opción AUTENTICACIÓN CON CONTRASEÑA
 

Periosteal Pocket Flap technique for lateral ridge augmentation. A comparative pilot study versus guide bone regeneration

dc.contributor.authorIglesias Velázquez, Óscar
dc.contributor.authorRebeca Serrano Zamora
dc.contributor.authorLópez-Pintor Muñoz, Rosa María
dc.contributor.authorGonzález Fernández-Tresguerres, Francisco
dc.contributor.authorLeco Berrocal, María Isabel
dc.contributor.authorMeniz García, Cristina María
dc.contributor.authorFernández-Tresguerres Hernández-Gil, Isabel
dc.contributor.authorTorres García Denche, Jesús
dc.date.accessioned2024-01-17T16:30:36Z
dc.date.available2024-01-17T16:30:36Z
dc.date.issued2022-08
dc.description.abstractBackground: Implant rehabilitation of posterior mandibular defects is frequently associated to a horizontal bone loss. There exist several regenerative techniques to supply this bone deficiency, one of which is the Periosteal Pocket Flap Technique (PPF) proposed by Steigmann et al. to treat small horizontal bone defects. The present study proposes a modification of this technique based on the concurrent use of PPF with the use of xenogeneic and autologous bone and Plasma Rich in Growth Factors (PRGF). The aim of this study is to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of the PPF with the use of xenogeneic and autologous bone and PRGF in comparison with conventional Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) procedures. Methods: Nine patients were enroled in the study (7 women and 2 men, mean age: 53 ± 2.74 years) and allocated to PPF or GBR. In both groups implant placement was performed simultaneously to bone regeneration. Preoperative CBCT scans were performed for each patient. Surgical time and postoperative pain were recorded, as well as tissue healing. Moreover, horizontal bone gain (mm), graft surface area (mm2) and graft volume (mm3) were evaluated. Results: Nine surgeries were performed: 6 PPF and 3 GBR. Regarding clinical outcomes, operative time was significative greater in GBR group than in PPF group (51.67 ± 3.51 min vs. 37 ± 5.69 min; p = 0.008). Postoperative pain was higher in GBR compared to PPF (p = 0.011). Regarding radiographical results, there were not significant differences in horizontal bone gain (PPF: 9.43 ± 1.8 mm; GBR: 9.28 ± 0.42 mm), surface area (PPF: 693.33 ± 118.73 mm2; GBR: 655.61 ± 102.43 mm2), and volume (PPF: 394.97 ± 178.72 mm3; GBR: 261.66 ± 118 mm3) between groups. Conclusions: This prospective study demonstrates that the combination of autograft/xenograft and PRGF in PPF technique is a simpler, cheaper, and faster technique than GBR technique for achieving moderate lateral bone augmentation in implant treatment. Future randomised clinical studies are needed to confirm the results.en
dc.description.departmentDepto. de Especialidades Clínicas Odontológicas
dc.description.facultyFac. de Odontología
dc.description.refereedTRUE
dc.description.statuspub
dc.identifier.citationIglesias-Velázquez Ó, Zamora RS, López-Pintor RM, Tresguerres FGF, Berrocal IL, García CM, Tresguerres IF, García-Denche JT. Periosteal Pocket Flap technique for lateral ridge augmentation. A comparative pilot study versus guide bone regeneration. Ann Anat. 2022 Aug;243:151950
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.aanat.2022.151950
dc.identifier.essn1618-0402
dc.identifier.issn0940-9602
dc.identifier.officialurlhttps//doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2022.151950
dc.identifier.pmid35504519
dc.identifier.relatedurlhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0940960222000656?via%3Dihub
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/93663
dc.journal.titleAnnals of anatomy
dc.language.isoeng
dc.page.initial151950
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 Internationalen
dc.rights.accessRightsopen access
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject.cdu616.314-089.843
dc.subject.cdu616.314
dc.subject.cdu616.314.17-008.1
dc.subject.keywordBone regeneration
dc.subject.keywordDental implants
dc.subject.keywordLateral ridge augmentation
dc.subject.keywordPRGF
dc.subject.keywordPRP
dc.subject.keywordPeriosteal pocket flap
dc.subject.keywordPeriosteum
dc.subject.keywordPlatelet rich plasma
dc.subject.keywordPlatelet rich in growth factors
dc.subject.ucmOdontología (Odontología)
dc.subject.ucmPeriodoncia
dc.subject.ucmImplantes dentales
dc.subject.unesco32 Ciencias Médicas
dc.subject.unesco3213.13 Ortodoncia-Estomatología
dc.subject.unesco3213 Cirugía
dc.titlePeriosteal Pocket Flap technique for lateral ridge augmentation. A comparative pilot study versus guide bone regenerationen
dc.typejournal article
dc.type.hasVersionVoR
dc.volume.number243
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationb686e7da-b3c7-41a9-bbe0-8c1f30cbc553
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationfe475bbf-5475-4843-92d3-147c51977f5c
relation.isAuthorOfPublicatione9ca2f79-0fd4-4bfd-b42b-dec8f1aa627c
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationb2161336-602c-49a5-8736-5eef56ed93e4
relation.isAuthorOfPublication6f2c8d34-b93c-4643-baf4-05272324c197
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryb686e7da-b3c7-41a9-bbe0-8c1f30cbc553

Download

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Periosteal Pocket Flap technique for lateral ridge augmentation. A comparative pilot study versus guide bone regeneration
Size:
5.48 MB
Format:

Collections