Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objective: To compare the effects of filling bone gap between implants with bone graft materials of different sizes and forms of primary stability after alveolar split osteotomy process. Materials and Methods: Materials and Methods: Fourty fresh ribs were divided into four main groups. The groups created are based on the xenograft material of different sizes and forms; group Putty (P): Group applied Putty (form) graft (granule size 0.25– 1 mm), group Small (S): Group applied Small particle graft (granule size 0.25– 1 mm) group, group Large (L): Group applied Large particle graft (granule size 1– 2 mm), control group (C): classified as group where no bone graft was applied. Bone expansion was performed using piezosurgery. In all groups, two implants were inserted into the each rib after alveolar crest expansions. The gap between implants (outside the control group) was filled with bone graft materials of different forms and sizes (large, small, putty). The primary stability values of the implants were measured with in the direction of the bucco-lingual (BL) and mesio-distal (MD) by the ISQ (implant stability quotient) and compared between groups. Results: The primary stability values measured in the BL direction are higher than the primary stability values measured in the MD direction and values are statistically significant difference. There is no statistically significant difference between the 1st and 2nd implants in each group (C, P, S, L) for their measured values in both BL direction and MD direction. Conclusion: According to the ISQ values used to evaluate primary stability, it was found that the graft materials of different sizes used in our study did not cause a significant difference for the primary stability of the implants.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mercan et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: