Prospective cohort study compares dynamic navigation-guided palatal grafting and conventional chin grafting, suggesting comparable outcomes.
Conventional intraoral donor sites for bone augmentation exhibit inherent limitations. This study investigates the maxillary palate as a novel donor site for simultaneous bone augmentation and implant placement in the anterior aesthetic zone, while assessing the feasibility of dynamic navigation-guided palatal bone ring grafting. Twelve patients with maxillary anterior tooth loss(Class 4-5 ridge defects)were included in the study and divided into the palatal bone ring group (group A, n=6) and orthotopic or chin bone ring group (group B, n=6). Bone ring grafting with simultaneous implant placement were completed under the guidance of dynamic navigation. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed to evaluate the vertical and horizontal bone augmentation around the implants and the surgical accuracy of the 2 groups. The healing of the donor sites, the volume and the cortical bone/cancellous bone ratio of the bone ring were compared between the 2 groups. The results showed that there was no significant difference in vertical bone augmentation (4.97±1.30 mm versus 4.83±2.71 mm, P=0.91), labial bone width (1.85±0.64 mm versus 1.91±0.37 mm, P=0.87) and palatal bone width (1.63±0.57 mm versus 1.40±0.66 mm, P=0.53) between the 2 groups after 6 months. No significant differences were observed in surgical accuracy, donor-site healing, or bone ring characteristics (all P>0.05). The study showed that obtaining a palatal bone ring under dynamic navigation guidance is accurate, safe and effective, and its bone augmentation effect is comparable to that of the common donor site.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wingshan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: