Iglesias Velázquez, ÓscarRebeca Serrano ZamoraLópez-Pintor Muñoz, Rosa MaríaGonzález Fernández-Tresguerres, FranciscoLeco Berrocal, María IsabelMeniz García, Cristina MaríaFernández-Tresguerres Hernández-Gil, IsabelTorres García Denche, Jesús2024-01-172024-01-172022-08Iglesias-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;243:1519500940-960210.1016/j.aanat.2022.151950https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/93663Background: 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.engAttribution 4.0 Internationalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/journal article1618-0402https//doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2022.15195035504519https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0940960222000656?via%3Dihubopen access616.314-089.843616.314616.314.17-008.1Bone regenerationDental implantsLateral ridge augmentationPRGFPRPPeriosteal pocket flapPeriosteumPlatelet rich plasmaPlatelet rich in growth factorsOdontología (Odontología)PeriodonciaImplantes dentales32 Ciencias Médicas3213.13 Ortodoncia-Estomatología3213 Cirugía