Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 5, 2025

Calvarial Model of Bone Augmentation in Rabbit for Assessment of Bone Growth and Neovascularization in Bone Substitution Materials
Published on: August 13, 2019
Ridge augmentation using autologous concentrated growth factors enriched bone graft matrix versus guided bone
Sarah Abd Allah Aboelela1, Mohammed Atef2, Mohamed Shawky2
1Department of Implantology, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Background:
Facial resorption of maxillary alveolar ridges is a challenging situation for implant rehabilitation, which mandates a preparatory surgery of bone augmentation. Guided bone regeneration using a 1:1 mixture of autogenous particulate and anorganic bovine bone mineral (ABBM) showed reliable outcomes in treating horizontally deficient ridges.
Methods:
Twenty-eight patients were randomly assigned into two groups; in the control group, the 1:1 mixture of particulate autogenous bone and ABBM was covered with native collagen membrane, while in the study group, it was mixed with autologous fibrin glue (AFG) to make a sticky bone that was covered by concentrated growth factor (CGF) membrane. For each proposed implant site, the average bone width gain was calculated preoperatively, immediately after augmentation and after 6 months. Implants were placed after 6 months and the implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured after insertion and after 6 more months.
Results:
The graft consolidation period went uneventful in both groups; however, two cases in the sticky bone group showed total resorption of the graft upon re-entry. The mean horizontal bone width after 6 months was 9 mm ± 0.71 in the guided bone regeneration (GBR) group which was higher than 7.9 mm ± 0.92 for the sticky bone group. The mean primary stability was higher in the GBR group; 67.19 ± 2.23 compared to 66.7 ± 3.22 for the sticky bone group, while the mean secondary stability was higher in the sticky bone group; 72 ± 2.15 compared to 71.7 ± 2.27 for the GBR group. Results of Shapiro-Wilk's for bone width data and model residuals were both statistically not significant (p > 0.05).
Conclusion:
Comparing CGF membrane versus native collagen membrane as barriers for GBR showed no statistically significant difference regarding bone gain. However, from a clinical point of view, CGF membrane is not a predictable barrier for guided bone regeneration.
More Related Videos
09:34Visualizing Angiogenesis by Multiphoton Microscopy In Vivo in Genetically Modified 3D-PLGA/nHAp Scaffold for Calvarial Critical Bone Defect Repair
Published on: September 7, 2017
06:05Author Spotlight: Enhancing Bone Regeneration with Vascularized Artificial Cartilage Integration
Published on: July 14, 2023