Clinical and radiographic evaluation of bone augmentation around dental implant using different bone graft materials | ||||
| Al-Azhar Journal of Dental Science | ||||
| Article 11, Volume 22, Issue 1, January 2019, Page 75-80 PDF (740.76 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/ajdsm.2019.71722 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Mohammad S Tawakol* 1; Mohammed M Khedr* 2; Abdelfattah M Amer3 | ||||
| 1Dentist: Ministry of Health | ||||
| 2Professor and Head of Oral Medicine, Periodontology, Oral Diagnosis and Radiology Department, Faculty of Den-tal Medicine (Boys, Cairo), Al-Azhar University | ||||
| 3Professor of Oral Medicine, Periodontology, Oral Diagnosis and Radiology Department, Faculty of Dental Medi-cine (Boys, Cairo), Al-Azhar University | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background: The present study evaluated the augmented bone around a dental implant utilizing synthetic bone (Sinoss Graft) or xenograft bone (Tutobone Graft) materials. Methods: A group of patients were divided into two groups, based on the graft material used. Group I Patients were treated by placing two dental implants, with guided bone regeneration using synthetic bone material. (Sinoss Graft) and Group II Patients were treated by placing two dental implants, with guided bone regeneration using xenograft bone material (Tutobone Graft). Results: GTR + Xenograft group recorded a higher Osstell measurement than GTR + synthetic bone group. In GTR +synthetic bone or GTR + xenograft groups; there was a statistically significant different. GTR + xenograft showed a higher bone density than GTR +synthetic bone group. Conclusion: Treatment of osseous defects using Xenografts in combination with GTR, generally, has significant better clinical outcome. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 478 PDF Download: 943 |
||||
