Methods: Patients who need vertical /horizontal ridge augmentation of partially edentulous upper and lower jaws were included in the study. Periosteal fenestration technique (PFT) was performed with 18 sites and double-flap technique (DFT) was performed with 11 sites by a single operator. The questionnaire was obtained from patients one week after GBR regarding postoperative pain, swelling and bleeding (0-10 scores each). Any other complications including membrane exposure, infection, paralysis were recorded 1,2,4,8,12,24 weeks after GBR.
Results: A total of 23 patients with 29 surgical sites were enrolled for the study. The healing during six months period was uneventful in 21 surgical sites. Within the limitations of this study, there were not statistically significant differences in the pain/discomfort level for the patient such as pain (mean score 1.55 vs. 2.89; P=0.15), swelling (mean score 2.00 vs. 2.78; p=0.074), and bleeding (mean score 0.0 vs. 0.72; P=0.245) and the frequency of post-operative complications (9.1% vs. 38.9%; P=0.087) such as paresthesia, continuous discomfort (membrane dislocation), and the membrane exposure rare (9.1% vs. 11.1%; p= 0.874) between the Double-flap technique and the periosteal fenestration technique. The mean flap advancement (mm) of Double-flap technique was significantly greater than the mean flap advancement of the conventional periosteal fenestration technique (9.64 mm vs. 7.14 mm; p=0.025).
Conclusions: Double-flap technique showed comparable clinical performance with conventional periosteal fenestration technique in guided bone regeneration. Results further indicate that the Double-flap technique significantly enhances flap advancement compared to the conventional periosteal fenestration. This new technique can be utilized as an alternative option to the conventional technique.
Keywords: Bone, Implantology, Implants, Regeneration and Surgery