Horizontal Bone Augmentation with Simultaneous Implant Placement Using Ridge Splitting with Sticky Bone Versus Onlay Sticky Bone Graft

Introduction: A variety of bone grafting techniques had been used to augment horizontally deficient alveolar bone ridges to provide a sufficient bone volume to achieve a correct prosthetic 3-dimensional placement of dental implants. Objectives: to evaluate clinically and radiographically by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) the amount of horizontal bone gain between two different augmentation techniques for horizontal ridge deficiency with simultaneous implant placement; using piezo-assisted ridge splitting technique with sticky bone graft versus Onlay sticky bone graft in patients who had bilateral posterior edentulous sites in the maxillary ridge. Materials and methods: Seven patients including a total of 14 sites; 7 sites for each treatment modality. Each patient had bilateral posterior maxillary edentulous areas with horizontal ridge deficiency ranging from 3-5 mm. The augmentation sites were randomly divided into two groups; Piezo-assisted ridge splitting technique with simultaneous implant placement and Onlay sticky bone graft with simultaneous implant placement. Patients were evaluated for clinical parameters, including ridge width using a bone calliper, radiographic assessment of marginal bone width and alveolar bone density using CBCT, clinical attachment loss, plaque index, bleeding on probing and pocket depth. Results were obtained at surgery time, 6 months post-surgery, and 18 months post-surgery. Results: there was a statistically significant increase in bone width in both groups, Also, bone density was slightly increased at implant and grafting sites at 6- and 18-months follow-ups. Furthermore, both groups showed a statistically significant increase in bone width measured by bone calliper at baseline and at 6 months post-surgically. There was no statistical difference between the two groups' bone gain measurements. No significant changes were observed in PI, BOP, or CAL. Conclusion: Both surgical techniques provided promising clinical and radiographic outcomes with no statistically significant differences among them.