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.
Aperçu de l'étude
Statut
Les conditions
Intervention / Traitement
Description détaillée
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.
Type d'étude
Inscription (Réel)
Contacts et emplacements
Lieux d'étude
-
-
Istanbul
-
Istanbul, Istanbul, Turquie (Türkiye), 34854
- Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
-
-
Critères de participation
Critère d'éligibilité
Âges éligibles pour étudier
- Adulte
- Adulte plus âgé
Accepte les volontaires sains
Méthode d'échantillonnage
Population étudiée
La description
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 d'étude
Comment l'étude est-elle conçue ?
Détails de conception
Cohortes et interventions
Groupe / Cohorte |
Intervention / Traitement |
|---|---|
|
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.
Autres noms:
|
|
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.
Autres noms:
|
Que mesure l'étude ?
Principaux critères de jugement
Mesure des résultats |
Description de la mesure |
Délai |
|---|---|---|
|
Long-Term Horizontal Bone Gain
Délai: 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)
|
Mesures de résultats secondaires
Mesure des résultats |
Description de la mesure |
Délai |
|---|---|---|
|
Implant Survival Rate
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
|
Collaborateurs et enquêteurs
Parrainer
Les enquêteurs
- Chercheur principal: Guhan Dergin, DDS, PhD, Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry
Publications et liens utiles
Publications générales
- 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.
Dates d'enregistrement des études
Dates principales de l'étude
Début de l'étude (Réel)
Achèvement primaire (Réel)
Achèvement de l'étude (Réel)
Dates d'inscription aux études
Première soumission
Première soumission répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité
Première publication (Réel)
Mises à jour des dossiers d'étude
Dernière mise à jour publiée (Réel)
Dernière mise à jour soumise répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité
Dernière vérification
Plus d'information
Termes liés à cette étude
Mots clés
Termes MeSH pertinents supplémentaires
Autres numéros d'identification d'étude
- 2025-11-02/2025-86 (Autre identifiant: Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry Clinical Research Ethics Committee Approval)
Plan pour les données individuelles des participants (IPD)
Prévoyez-vous de partager les données individuelles des participants (DPI) ?
Informations sur les médicaments et les dispositifs, documents d'étude
Étudie un produit pharmaceutique réglementé par la FDA américaine
Étudie un produit d'appareil réglementé par la FDA américaine
Ces informations ont été extraites directement du site Web clinicaltrials.gov sans aucune modification. Si vous avez des demandes de modification, de suppression ou de mise à jour des détails de votre étude, veuillez contacter register@clinicaltrials.gov. Dès qu'un changement est mis en œuvre sur clinicaltrials.gov, il sera également mis à jour automatiquement sur notre site Web .