Comparison of Split Box and Split Bone Block Techniques in Horizontal Ridge Augmentation (SBBTvsSBT)
Comparison of Radiological Bone Gain and Resorption Between the Split Box Technique and the Split Bone Block Technique, and Evaluation of Implant Survival: a Retrospective Study
Horizontal alveolar ridge deficiencies may prevent the placement of dental implants and often require bone augmentation procedures before implant treatment. Two techniques commonly used for horizontal ridge augmentation are the Split Box Technique and the Split Bone Block Technique.
This retrospective study included patients treated at Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry between January 2014 and January 2026. Radiographic records were reviewed to evaluate bone gain after augmentation and the stability of the augmented bone during long-term follow-up. Implant survival after prosthetic rehabilitation was also assessed.
The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of the Split Box Technique and the Split Bone Block Technique in terms of bone gain, bone stability, and implant survival.
Descripción general del estudio
Estado
Condiciones
Intervención / Tratamiento
Descripción detallada
Horizontal alveolar ridge deficiencies often require augmentation procedures before dental implant placement. Among the available augmentation methods, the Split Bone Block Technique (SBBT) and the Split Box Technique (SBT) are autogenous bone augmentation approaches designed to increase horizontal ridge width and facilitate implant-supported rehabilitation.
The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the radiological outcomes of SBBT and SBT with respect to horizontal bone gain, long-term bone stability, and implant survival. In addition, postoperative complications associated with both techniques were evaluated.
Patients treated between January 2014 and January 2026 at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry, were retrospectively screened. Patients who underwent horizontal ridge augmentation using either SBBT or SBT and had complete radiographic follow-up records were included in the study.
Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images obtained preoperatively, 6 months after augmentation, and during long-term follow-up after prosthetic rehabilitation were used to assess changes in horizontal bone width and graft stability. Radiological measurements were performed to evaluate bone gain after augmentation, dimensional changes during follow-up, and long-term maintenance of the augmented ridge.
The primary outcome measures were horizontal bone gain and long-term bone resorption. Secondary outcome measures included implant survival following definitive prosthetic rehabilitation and the occurrence of postoperative complications.
The study was designed to determine whether the Split Box Technique and the Split Bone Block Technique provide comparable long-term clinical and radiological outcomes for the treatment of horizontal alveolar ridge deficiencies prior to implant placement.
Tipo de estudio
Inscripción (Actual)
Contactos y Ubicaciones
Ubicaciones de estudio
-
-
Istanbul
-
Istanbul, Istanbul, Turquía (Türkiye), 34854
- Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
-
-
Criterios de participación
Criterio de elegibilidad
Edades elegibles para estudiar
- Adulto
- Adulto Mayor
Acepta Voluntarios Saludables
Método de muestreo
Población de estudio
Descripción
Inclusion Criteria:
- Age ≥18 years.
- Patients with horizontal alveolar ridge deficiency requiring horizontal ridge augmentation before implant placement.
- Patients treated with either the Split Box Technique (SBT) or Split Bone Block Technique (SBBT) at Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry between January 2014 and January 2026.
- Availability of complete radiographic records, including CBCT scans obtained preoperatively (T0), 6 months after augmentation (T1), and during long-term follow-up after prosthetic loading (T2).
- Availability of complete clinical records and follow-up data.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Incomplete clinical or radiographic records.
- Patients lost to follow-up.
- Presence of uncontrolled systemic diseases or conditions known to adversely affect bone healing.
- Use of medications known to interfere with bone metabolism or healing.
- Active infection at the augmentation site or complications that altered the planned treatment protocol.
Plan de estudios
¿Cómo está diseñado el estudio?
Detalles de diseño
Cohortes e Intervenciones
Grupo / Cohorte |
Intervención / Tratamiento |
|---|---|
|
Split Bone Block Technique (SBBT)
Patients who underwent horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation using the Split Bone Block Technique.
|
Autogenous horizontal ridge augmentation procedure using cortical bone plates harvested from the mandibular ramus to reconstruct deficient alveolar ridges prior to implant placement.
Otros nombres:
|
|
Split Box Technique (SBT)
Patients who underwent horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation using the Split Box Technique.
|
Autogenous horizontal ridge augmentation procedure involving mobilization and fixation of a buccal bone segment to increase horizontal ridge width prior to implant placement.
Otros nombres:
|
¿Qué mide el estudio?
Medidas de resultado primarias
Medida de resultado |
Medida Descripción |
Periodo de tiempo |
|---|---|---|
|
Long-Term Horizontal Bone Gain
Periodo de tiempo: From baseline (preoperative CBCT) to long-term follow-up after prosthetic loading(average follow-up: 4.2 years)
|
Overall change in horizontal alveolar ridge width from baseline to long-term follow-up after prosthetic loading, measured on CBCT images.
|
From baseline (preoperative CBCT) to long-term follow-up after prosthetic loading(average follow-up: 4.2 years)
|
Medidas de resultado secundarias
Medida de resultado |
Medida Descripción |
Periodo de tiempo |
|---|---|---|
|
Implant Survival Rate
Periodo de tiempo: From implant placement through study completion (average follow-up: 4.2 years)
|
Survival of dental implants placed in augmented sites following prosthetic rehabilitation.
|
From implant placement through study completion (average follow-up: 4.2 years)
|
|
Postoperative Complications
Periodo de tiempo: From augmentation surgery through study completion (average follow-up: 4.2 years)
|
Occurrence of complications related to augmentation procedures, including wound dehiscence, infection, graft exposure, and neurosensory disturbances.
|
From augmentation surgery through study completion (average follow-up: 4.2 years)
|
|
Long-Term Bone Resorption
Periodo de tiempo: From 6 months after augmentation surgery to long-term follow-up after prosthetic loading (average follow-up: 4.2 years)
|
Change in horizontal ridge width between the post-augmentation healing period and long-term follow-up, measured on CBCT images.
|
From 6 months after augmentation surgery to long-term follow-up after prosthetic loading (average follow-up: 4.2 years)
|
|
Horizontal Bone Gain
Periodo de tiempo: From baseline (preoperative CBCT) to 6 months after augmentation surgery
|
Change in horizontal alveolar ridge width from baseline to 6 months after augmentation, measured on CBCT images.
|
From baseline (preoperative CBCT) to 6 months after augmentation surgery
|
Colaboradores e Investigadores
Patrocinador
Investigadores
- Investigador principal: Guhan Dergin, DDS, PhD, Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry
Publicaciones y enlaces útiles
Publicaciones Generales
- Dergin G, Kirac Can SB, Can S. A novel approach for horizontal augmentation with split box: A method that combines split bone block and ridge split techniques. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024 Dec;125(6):101790. doi: 10.1016/j.jormas.2024.101790. Epub 2024 Feb 1.
- Khoury F, Hanser T. Mandibular bone block harvesting from the retromolar region: a 10-year prospective clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015 May-Jun;30(3):688-97. doi: 10.11607/jomi.4117.
Fechas de registro del estudio
Fechas importantes del estudio
Inicio del estudio (Actual)
Finalización primaria (Actual)
Finalización del estudio (Actual)
Fechas de registro del estudio
Enviado por primera vez
Primero enviado que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad
Publicado por primera vez (Actual)
Actualizaciones de registros de estudio
Última actualización publicada (Actual)
Última actualización enviada que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad
Última verificación
Más información
Términos relacionados con este estudio
Palabras clave
Términos MeSH relevantes adicionales
Otros números de identificación del estudio
- 2025-11-02/2025-86 (Otro identificador: Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry Clinical Research Ethics Committee Approval)
Plan de datos de participantes individuales (IPD)
¿Planea compartir datos de participantes individuales (IPD)?
Información sobre medicamentos y dispositivos, documentos del estudio
Estudia un producto farmacéutico regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.
Estudia un producto de dispositivo regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.
Esta información se obtuvo directamente del sitio web clinicaltrials.gov sin cambios. Si tiene alguna solicitud para cambiar, eliminar o actualizar los detalles de su estudio, comuníquese con register@clinicaltrials.gov. Tan pronto como se implemente un cambio en clinicaltrials.gov, también se actualizará automáticamente en nuestro sitio web. .