The aim of present study was to compare two bone augmentation techniques (Guided Bone Regeneration, GBR, with autogenous block graft and GBR with particulate autograft plus xenograft) in terms of efficacy, complications, operational parameters (cost of the materials used, time for patient preparation, time for surgery, fatigue of the physician caused by surgery) tolerability by the patient and patient comfort. 30 systemically healthy individuals with inadequate alveolar bone crest width who requested implant placement (15 Female and 15 Male) participated in this study. After an initial examination, 15 patients were assigned to GBR with block graft (GBR-BG) and 15 were assigned to GBR particulate autograft plus xenograft (GBR-AX). Bone thickness was recorded before surgery and at a post-operative 6th month. Complications as Bleeding, Hematoma, Flap dehiscence, Infection, Numbness were evaluated. Patients were requested to record pain and swelling via visual analog scale (VAS) at 3rd, 7th and 14th days after surgery. The swelling was also recorded by an experienced clinician at 3rd, 7th and 14th days after surgery. Cost, time for patient preparation, time for surgery, fatigue of the physician caused by surgery were also determined.
The aim of present study was to compare two bone augmentation techniques (Guided Bone Regeneration, GBR, with autogenous block graft and GBR with particulate autograft plus xenograft) in terms of efficacy, complications, operational parameters (cost of the materials used, time for patient preparation, time for surgery, fatigue of the physician caused by surgery) tolerability by the patient and patient comfort.