A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Autogenous interpositional block graft vs onlay graft for horizontal ridge augmentation in the mandible. | LitMetric

Autogenous interpositional block graft vs onlay graft for horizontal ridge augmentation in the mandible.

Clin Implant Dent Relat Res

Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.

Published: August 2019

Background: Interpositional block graft revealed promising results in vertical ridge augmentation in the mandible, while scarce evidence is available regarding the use of interpositional block graft for horizontal ridge augmentation in the mandible.

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of autogenous block interpositional graft vs onlay graft in terms of horizontal ridge augmentation in the mandible.

Materials And Methods: Twenty patients were randomly divided in two groups interpositional and onlay groups, using autogenous blocks harvested from the mandibular symphysis as the donor site. For the interpositional group, the mandibular ridge was split and the harvested block was inserted in the created space and fixated using titanium screws. For the onlay group, the defect site was decorticated and the harvested block was firmly fixated buccally using titanium screws. Immediate and 4 months postoperative cone beam computed tomography scans were taken for assessment.

Results: In the interpositional group, the mean preoperative bone width was 3.85 ± 0.6 mm, after 4 months, the mean bone width was 8.84 ± 0.54 mm. While in the onlay group, the mean preoperative bone width was 3.74 ± 0.83 mm while after 4 months the mean bone width was 7.37 ± 1.98 mm. this was statistically significant.

Conclusion: Within the limits of this study, interpositional block graft appears to be a viable treatment option for horizontal ridge augmentation in the mandible.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cid.12809DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

ridge augmentation
20
interpositional block
16
block graft
16
horizontal ridge
16
bone width
16
augmentation mandible
12
graft onlay
8
onlay graft
8
graft horizontal
8
interpositional group
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!