EVALUATION OF HORIZONTAL ALVEOLAR RIDGE AUGMENTATION USING PERICARDIAL MEMBRANE VERSUS TITANIUM MESH (Histological and Clinical Study)

Abaza, Ahmed Wafaa; Kheir El Din, Nevine Hassan; Abbas, Waleed Mohammed; Abdel Khalik, Dina Mohammed

doi:10.21608/asdj.2021.63316.1027

EVALUATION OF HORIZONTAL ALVEOLAR RIDGE AUGMENTATION USING PERICARDIAL MEMBRANE VERSUS TITANIUM MESH (Histological and Clinical Study)

Document Type : Consort randomized clinical trials (RCT)

Authors

¹ 44c alkhalifa al mamoon masr el gedeeda

² Department of Oral Medicine, Periodontology, Oral Diagnosis, Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University.

³ Assistant Professor of Oral Medicine, Periodontology and Oral Diagnosis Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University

⁴ department of Oral Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University

10.21608/asdj.2021.63316.1027

Abstract

Background: Reconstruction of alveolar bone defect can be achieved by many regenerative surgical procedures, including ridge splitting, onlay grafting, interpositional inlay grafting, distraction osteogenesis, and guided bone regeneration (GBR). In restoring horizontal bone deficiency, GBR was successfully developed. However, there is still a debate about the optimal barrier for GBR.
Aim of the study: A clinical, radiographic and histological evaluation of horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation in the esthetic zone using pericardial membrane versus titanium mesh.
Materials and Methods: A randomized clinical trial was conducted on 20 patients with insufficient width of edentulous ridge, equally allocated into two groups. For both groups, autogenous tenting bone block harvested from symphyseal area covered by particulate graft which is an equal mixture (1:1) of autogenous and anorganic bovine bone matrix (ABBM). A barrier membrane Group I (PM) was bovine pericardium membrane, while in group II (TM) titanium mesh.
Results: Both groups had a radiographical and clinical statistically significant difference in buccolingual alveolar ridge dimension between baseline and after 4 months. The (PM) group had lower area fraction of newly formed bone mean value than that of (TM) group yet the difference was
not significant. The (PM) group had a higher mean of osteocyte count than that of (TM) group again the difference was not significant.
Conclusions: GBR with either pericardium membrane or titanium mesh is a reliable treatment modality for horizontal augmentation of deficient maxillary alveolar ridges. Titanium mesh complications still remain a problem in this type of surgery compared to pericardium membrane.

Keywords