الفهرس 
Title : Assessment of alveolar ridge splitting of horizontally defiecient posterior mandible using modified ridge splitting technique with or without using beta- tricalcium phosphate material (b-tcp) in enhancement of alveolar horizontal bone gain : A randomized clinical trial
AbstractOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 139 |  |  |
| | | from | 139 | | |
Abstract
the aim of this study is to assess the use of beta-tricalcium phosphate only as particulate
bone graft material in alveolar ridge splitting in posterior mandible versus alveolar ridge splitting
without grafting material of horizontally deficient posterior mandible.
Materials and Methods: this study was held in the outpatient clinic in oral implantology
department, faculty of dentistry, Cairo University. This study was done on ten different operations
sites on five female patients. The five patients suffered from teeth loss in posterior mandible which
were horizontally deficient. These five female patients weren’t heavy smokers, pregnant, had
systemic diseases that would affect normal healing. Panoramic radiographic examination and
CBCT were done to the five female patients. The patients were randomly divided in to two groups
where ridge split mouth technique was done. One group received Beta tricalcium phosphate (BTCP)
as a grafting material, the second group received no grafting material. Both radiographic and
histological assessment were done. Bucco-lingual bone width gain were measured in Mm by CBCT
preoperatively, and immediately after surgery, and after 6 months in re-entry stage (second stage
surgery). For each group the amount of horizontally bone gain after 6 months measured in Mm
were subtracted from the amount of horizontally bone gain achieved immediately after surgery
(primary outcome). A core biopsy were taken after 6 mounts in re-entery stage by surgical bur, and
histopathological examination was done to detect bone quality for each group.
Results: For Radiographic assessment results, group 1 was higher in bone gain at 2mm than
group 2 and was statistically different than group 2. group 1 was higher in bone gain at 5mm than
group 2 and was statistically different than group 2. group 1 was higher in bone gain at 10mm
than group 2 and was statistically different than group 2. For histopathological assessment results,
group 1 was higher in the area percent of compact bone formation than group 2 and was
statistically different than group 2