Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 4, 2026
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Buccal Bone Dimensional Changes Following Implant Placement and Guided Bone Regeneration With Submerged or
Haider Alramli1, Robert Kelley2, Stavros Sofos3
1Private Practice, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Objectives:
The aim was to compare buccal bone dimensional changes following implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR), using either a submerged or transmucosal healing approach.
Materials And Methods:
In this randomized, controlled clinical study, twenty-eight patients with a single implant placed at a restorative-driven position and with at least 2 mm of the coronal aspect of the implant exposed were allocated to be treated with GBR, either with a submerged healing approach (SBM Group) or a transmucosal healing approach (TSM Group). Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) studies were taken immediately following treatment (T0) and at 4 months (T1). Vertical bone gain (VGAIN) was the primary outcome variable. Defect resolution, radiographic vertical defect height (RVDH), and radiographic bone thickness (RBT) were evaluated and compared.
Results:
No significant differences were found between the groups for defect height resolution, VGAIN, RVDH, and RBT (p > 0.05). A significant reduction in RBT was found between T0 and T1 within the groups (p < 0.05).
Conclusion:
The study found no significant differences in buccal bone dimensional changes between submerged and transmucosal healing approaches when implants were placed with simultaneous GBR.
