Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating guided bone regeneration (GBR) on knife-edge ridges using absorbable membranes with staged approaches have reported various horizontal bone gains. This study compared the horizontal bone gain obtained via a conventional technique of GBR and a recently-reported technique. Bone loss during the healing process was also measured.
METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent GBR on knife-edge ridges via a conventional technique (control group) or the Sausage Technique (test group) were included in this study. GBR was performed using a collagen membrane and deproteinized bovine bone mineral combined with an autogenous graft at a 1:1 ratio. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed preoperatively, postoperatively, and after the patient healed. Horizontal bone width was measured on CBCT images 2 mm apical from the top of the crest. The preoperative CBCT and posthealing CBCT were superimposed to calculate the bone gain after healing, and the preoperative and postoperative CBCT scans were superimposed to calculate the bone gain after surgery. Bone loss during healing was calculated by subtracting the width of the ridge after healing from the postoperative width.
RESULTS: The mean horizontal bone gain was significantly lower in the control group (2.7 ± 1.8 mm; 83.2%) than in the test group (5.3 ± 2.3 mm; 216.8%) (p = 0.003). The average horizontal bone loss between regeneration and implant placement was 0.9 mm in the control group (27.9%) and 2.1 mm in the test group (29.4%). While the absolute bone loss was significantly different (p = 0.012), the percentage of bone resorption was not (p = 0.608).
CONCLUSIONS: The new technique resulted in significantly more bone gain than a conventional GBR technique. The rate of graft resorption during healing was stable regardless of the amount of grafted material.
METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent GBR on knife-edge ridges via a conventional technique (control group) or the Sausage Technique (test group) were included in this study. GBR was performed using a collagen membrane and deproteinized bovine bone mineral combined with an autogenous graft at a 1:1 ratio. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed preoperatively, postoperatively, and after the patient healed. Horizontal bone width was measured on CBCT images 2 mm apical from the top of the crest. The preoperative CBCT and posthealing CBCT were superimposed to calculate the bone gain after healing, and the preoperative and postoperative CBCT scans were superimposed to calculate the bone gain after surgery. Bone loss during healing was calculated by subtracting the width of the ridge after healing from the postoperative width.
RESULTS: The mean horizontal bone gain was significantly lower in the control group (2.7 ± 1.8 mm; 83.2%) than in the test group (5.3 ± 2.3 mm; 216.8%) (p = 0.003). The average horizontal bone loss between regeneration and implant placement was 0.9 mm in the control group (27.9%) and 2.1 mm in the test group (29.4%). While the absolute bone loss was significantly different (p = 0.012), the percentage of bone resorption was not (p = 0.608).
CONCLUSIONS: The new technique resulted in significantly more bone gain than a conventional GBR technique. The rate of graft resorption during healing was stable regardless of the amount of grafted material.
摘要：
背景：使用可吸收膜通过分阶段方法评估刀刃脊上的引导骨再生（GBR）的研究已经报道了各种水平骨增益。这项研究比较了通过常规GBR技术和最近报道的技术获得的水平骨增益。还测量了愈合过程中的骨损失。
方法：本研究包括通过常规技术（对照组）或香肠技术（测试组）在刀刃脊上连续接受GBR的患者。使用胶原蛋白膜和脱蛋白牛骨矿物质与自体移植物以1：1的比例进行GBR。术前进行锥形束计算机断层扫描（CBCT），术后,在病人痊愈后。在距the顶顶部2mm的CBCT图像上测量水平骨宽度。术前CBCT和术后CBCT叠加计算愈合后的骨增量，术前、术后CBCT扫描叠加计算术后骨增量。通过从术后宽度中减去愈合后的脊的宽度来计算愈合过程中的骨损失。
结果：对照组的平均水平骨增量（2.7±1.8mm；83.2％）明显低于测试组（5.3±2.3mm；216.8％）（p=0.003）。对照组再生和植入物放置之间的平均水平骨丢失为0.9mm（27.9％），实验组为2.1mm（29.4％）。虽然绝对骨丢失有显著差异（p=0.012），骨吸收百分比没有（p=0.608）。
结论：与传统的GBR技术相比，新技术导致了更多的骨增加。无论接枝材料的量如何，愈合过程中的移植物吸收速率都是稳定的。
方法：本研究包括通过常规技术（对照组）或香肠技术（测试组）在刀刃脊上连续接受GBR的患者。使用胶原蛋白膜和脱蛋白牛骨矿物质与自体移植物以1：1的比例进行GBR。术前进行锥形束计算机断层扫描（CBCT），术后,在病人痊愈后。在距the顶顶部2mm的CBCT图像上测量水平骨宽度。术前CBCT和术后CBCT叠加计算愈合后的骨增量，术前、术后CBCT扫描叠加计算术后骨增量。通过从术后宽度中减去愈合后的脊的宽度来计算愈合过程中的骨损失。
结果：对照组的平均水平骨增量（2.7±1.8mm；83.2％）明显低于测试组（5.3±2.3mm；216.8％）（p=0.003）。对照组再生和植入物放置之间的平均水平骨丢失为0.9mm（27.9％），实验组为2.1mm（29.4％）。虽然绝对骨丢失有显著差异（p=0.012），骨吸收百分比没有（p=0.608）。
结论：与传统的GBR技术相比，新技术导致了更多的骨增加。无论接枝材料的量如何，愈合过程中的移植物吸收速率都是稳定的。
