Fully digital versus conventional workflow for horizontal ridge augmentation with intraoral block bone: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Objectives To compare the outcome and efficiency of the computer-aided intraoral block bone grafting procedure with those of the conventional technique for the augmentation of horizontal ridge defects. Materials and Methods A total of 28 patients with single missing tooth in esthetic zone with class IV horizontal alveolar bone defect in need of dental implant restoration were recruited. Computer-aided design of the implant restoration and intraoral block bone grafting was performed for all the participants. The patients were randomly and equally divided into guide and control groups. A fully guided bone harvesting, trimming, and grafting surgery was executed in the guide group. The control group patients underwent surgery without any guide. After 6 months, all the patients underwent implant placement. The primary outcomes were the root mean square estimate (RMSE) values between the outer contours of the actual implanted and planned bone block as well as the RMSE values between the inner surface of the implanted bone block and the original bone surface of the recipient site immediately after surgery. The secondary outcomes were the trimming time of bone block and the surgery-associated complications. The postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) of pain, swelling, and mouth opening difficulty was recorded. Results All 28 patients underwent intraoral block bone grafting, followed by the placement of implant after 191.8 +/- 19.69 days. The RMSE values between the outer contours of the implanted and planned bone blocks were significantly lower in the guide group (0.37 +/- 0.16 mm) as compared to those in the control group (0.72 +/- 0.29 mm) (p = 0.0007). The RMSE values between the inner contours of the graft block and original bone at the recipient site were lower in the guide group (0.35 +/- 0.15 mm) as compared to those in the control group (0.48 +/- 0.17 mm) (p = 0.043). The duration of bone block trimming was shorter in the guide group (401.51 +/- 97.60 s) as compared to the control group (602.36 +/- 160.57 s) (p = 0.0005). In the control group, two patients received secondary bone grafting, one patient experienced bleeding of donor site and temporary hypoesthesia of the lower lip and chin skin, and one patient developed temporary sensitivity of the adjacent tooth. Conclusions As compared to the conventional procedure, the fully digital workflow in the present study seemed to be a more accuracy and effective protocol for horizontal ridge augmentation with intraoral block bone. Trial registration: (ChiCTR2000036390).

Automated summary

The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes and efficiency of computer-aided intraoral block bone grafting with conventional techniques for horizontal ridge augmentation. The study found that the computer-aided group had lower RMSE values, shorter trimming time, and fewer surgical complications.