{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Guided bone regeneration for peri-implant augmentation: A retrospective study comparing two surgical techniques with a mean follow-up of 26 months.
{Author}: Liu Y;Lan D;Gao J;Deng C;Man Y;
{Journal}: Clin Oral Implants Res
{Volume}: 35
{Issue}: 5
{Year}: 2024 May 11
{Factor}: 5.021
{DOI}: 10.1111/clr.14254
{Abstract}: <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>To introduce a modified guided bone regeneration (GBR) technique using intact periosteum and deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) for peri-implant augmentation and compare the clinical outcomes with those of conventional GBR.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>Patients who received peri-implant augmentation in posterior sites between 2015 and 2021 were reviewed in this study. Group A was treated with a modified GBR technique, and Group B was treated with conventional GBR. For group comparison, propensity score matching was performed with a sensitivity analysis. The implant survival rate, dimensional changes in hard tissue, marginal bone loss (MBL), and peri-implant parameters were evaluated.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>In total, 114 implants from 98 patients were included. The implant survival rates were 95.74% in Group A and 95.00% in Group B during the follow-up period. At 6 months, the median horizontal thickness was recorded at 0.87 mm (IQ1-IQ3 = 0.00-1.75 mm) in Group A, exhibiting a relatively lower value compared to the corresponding measurement of 0.98 mm (IQ1-IQ3 = 0.00-1.89 mm) in Group B (p = .937). Vertical height displayed no statistically significant intergroup difference between the two groups (p = .758). The mean follow-up period was 25.83 ± 12.93 months after loading in Group A and 27.47 ± 21.29 months in Group B (p = .761). MBL and peri-implant parameters were comparable between the two groups.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Within the limitations of this study, the modified GBR technique using intact periosteum and DBBM grafting might be a viable alternative to correct bone defects around implants in molar and premolar sites.