Lateral Ridge Augmentation with Autogenous Bone Harvested Using Trephine Drills: A Noninvasive Technique
H. R. Arab1, A. Moeintaghavi2, *, M. Taheri1, N. Sargolzaie3, D. Aghasizadeh4, F. Shiezadeh5
Identifiers and Pagination:Year: 2016
First Page: 1
Last Page: 11
Publisher ID: TODENTJ-10-1
Article History:Received Date: 25/12/2014
Revision Received Date: 9/11/2015
Acceptance Date: 10/11/2015
Electronic publication date: 29/2/2016
Collection year: 2016
open-access license: This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode), which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.
The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the success rate of a chairside ridge augmentation procedure using bone autografts harvested with trephine drills and placed without the use of screws.
Thirty patients were recruited for the study. After the surgical site was anesthetized and a crestal incision was made, an envelope flap was retracted using blunt dissection limited to the graft site, and the periosteum was raised intact and undamaged from the bone. The flap was extended laterally to obtain sufficient space for the bone graft. At the donor site, bone was obtained from the external oblique ridge area. A #5 or #6 trephine drill was used to harvest one or two pieces of bone. The bone blocks were placed inside the envelope flap at the recipient site, which was then sutured and covered with periodontal dressing. Antibiotics, analgesics, and mouthwash were prescribed. Measurements of ridge width were performed using CBCT before and 3 months after surgery. The pre- and post operative results were compared using paired t test.
Pre- and post-operative mean ridge widths were 2.23 ± 0.79 and 5.16 ± 0.68 mm, respectively. The mean increase in width was 2.92 ± 0.89 mm(P < 0.001).
This non-invasive and simple technique provided an acceptable increase in ridge width. As the sample was small, we recommend further clinical investigation with larger samples to confirm that this technique may be used successfully as an alternative to current invasive augmentation methods.