Comparison of Khoury's Bone Shell Technique vs Titanium-reinforced Polytetrafluoroethylene Membrane for 3D-bone Augmentation in Atrophic Posterior Mandible: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

AIM: This study was designed to compare between the use of Khoury's bone shell technique vs titanium-reinforced PTFE membrane for 3D-ridge augmentation of atrophic posterior mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients were equally and randomly assigned to either the Khoury or PTFE group. In Khoury group, a mandibular bone block was harvested, split and then fixed to augment the mandibular defect using osteosynthesis screws. In PTFE group, augmentation was achieved using Titanium-reinforced PTFE membranes fixed with bone tacks/screws. A mixture of autogenous and xenogenic graft material at a 1:1 ratio was used in both groups. Vertical and horizontal bone gain were obtained using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Preoperative dimensions were compared with the final dimensions obtained 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: No significant complications or neurosensory dysfunction were encountered. A solitary patient in the Khoury group experienced limited wound dehiscence, which was treated conservatively. For both groups, there were no significant differences between preoperative and postoperative vertical (p = 0.849 and 0.569) and horizontal (p = 0.778 and 0.367) dimensions. CONCLUSION: No significant differences exist between the augmentation dimension which can be obtained using either Khoury of Ti-PTFE membranes. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Both approaches are delicate and necessitate surgical expertise and experience. Both techniques can be used to achieve predictable augmentation results with a low rate of complications. How to cite this article: Shaker AES, Salem AS, El-Farag SAA, et al. Comparison of Khoury's Bone Shell Technique vs Titanium-reinforced Polytetrafluoroethylene Membrane for 3D-bone Augmentation in Atrophic Posterior Mandible: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(6):518-526.

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Autogenous Inlay Graft vs Autogenous Onlay Graft for Anterior Maxillary Horizontal Ridge Augmentation: A Randomized Control Clinical Study.

AIM: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of autogenous onlay and inlay grafts for anterior maxillary horizontal ridge augmentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized clinical trial was performed on 14 patients with a deficient partially edentulous anterior maxillary ridge (3-5 mm in width). Patients were randomized and grouped into two equal groups: Group A was treated with symphyseal autogenous bone block, which was placed and fixed buccally as an onlay graft, and group B: was treated with symphyseal autogenous bone block, which was interpositioned and fixed in space created between buccal and lingual cortex as inlay graft. Patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically to evaluate the increase of bone width at [Baseline, immediate postoperative (T0)] and six months post-graft (T6). RESULTS: A total of 14 patients (8 males and 6 females) with age range from 20 to 43 years old with a mean of 42.1 years were involved in our study. Radiographically, there was a significant statistical difference in comparing between two groups for the creation of a horizontal alveolar bone at T0. In the inlay group, the mean preoperative bone width was 3.9 ± 0.3 mm at T0 and 5.7 ± 0.5 mm at T6. While in the onlay group, the mean preoperative bone width was 3.7 ± 0.7 mm at T0 while at T6 the mean bone width was 6.1 ± 0.8 mm. This was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Inlay block graft appears to be a successful treatment option for horizontal ridge augmentation in the maxillary arch. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: both techniques are viable techniques for augmentation of atrophic alveolar ridge with uneventful healing. How to cite this article: Elsayed AO, Abdel-Rahman FH, Ahmed WMAS, et al. Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Autogenous Inlay Graft vs Autogenous Onlay Graft for Anterior Maxillary Horizontal Ridge Augmentation: A Randomized Control Clinical Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(2):107-113.