Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 24, 2025
08:41
Calvarial Model of Bone Augmentation in Rabbit for Assessment of Bone Growth and Neovascularization in Bone Substitution Materials
Published on: August 13, 2019
8.4K
Periosteal Pocket Flap technique for lateral ridge augmentation. A comparative pilot study versus guide bone
Óscar Iglesias-Velázquez1, Rebeca Serrano Zamora1, Rosa María López-Pintor1
1Department of Dental Clinical Specialties, Faculty of Odontology, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
Summary
The modified Periosteal Pocket Flap (PPF) technique using bone grafts and PRGF offers a simpler, faster, and cheaper alternative to Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) for horizontal bone augmentation in dental implantology.
Area of Science:
- Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
- Periodontology
- Regenerative Dentistry
Background:
- Horizontal bone loss in the posterior mandible presents a challenge for dental implant rehabilitation.
- The Periosteal Pocket Flap (PPF) technique is established for treating small horizontal bone defects.
- A modified PPF technique combining xenogeneic/autologous bone and Plasma Rich in Growth Factors (PRGF) is proposed.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the modified PPF technique.
- To compare the modified PPF technique with conventional Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR).
- To assess the efficacy of xenogeneic and autologous bone with PRGF in bone augmentation.
Main Methods:
- A prospective study enrolled nine patients (n=9), allocated to either PPF or GBR groups.
- Simultaneous implant placement and bone regeneration were performed in both groups.
- Surgical time, postoperative pain, tissue healing, horizontal bone gain, graft surface area, and volume were evaluated.
Main Results:
- The PPF technique demonstrated significantly shorter operative times (37 min vs. 51.67 min) and less postoperative pain compared to GBR.
- No significant differences were observed in horizontal bone gain (PPF: 9.43 mm vs. GBR: 9.28 mm).
- Graft surface area and volume showed no statistically significant differences between the PPF and GBR groups.
Conclusions:
- The modified PPF technique using autograft/xenograft and PRGF is a simpler, cheaper, and faster alternative to GBR for moderate lateral bone augmentation.
- This technique facilitates implant treatment in the posterior mandible with bone defects.
- Further randomized clinical trials are recommended to validate these findings.
