الفهرس 
Evaluation of accuracy of computer guided versus conventional segmental sandwich osteotomy with immediate implant placement in vertical deficient anterior maxilla
Abstract EnglishOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 147 |  |  |
| | | from | 147 | | |
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare computer guided segmental sandwich osteotomy to a conventional technique for reducing bucco-palatal tipping clinically and radiographically in vertically- deficient alveolar ridges in the-anterior area-of the maxilla. Methods:Thisstudyincluded12 Patients, with vertically deficient anterior maxilla divided into two equal groups. group 1 include 6 Patients for vertical augmentation by computer guided sandwich segmental osteotomy with immediate implant placement using xenograft to fill the gap. group 2 include 6 Patients for vertical augmentation by conventional sandwich segmental osteotomy with immediate implant placement using xenograft to fill the gap. Radiographic assessment done preoperatively, immediately and 4 months post operatively to assess the bucco palatal tipping, marginal bone loss and final bone gain for both group. Resonance frequency analysis device was done for each implant for both group to assess the secondary stability. Results: After four months, the study found a significant difference in the mean bucco palatal tipping of the two groups. Bucco-palatal tipping was 0.430.455mm on average in the study group, compared to 2.050.24mm in the control group.There is no statistically-significant difference-between the two groups in-terms of marginal bone loss. With a P value of 0.664, the mean bone loss in the study group was 1.080.49mm compared to 1.190.29mm in the control group. There is no -statistically -significant difference in final bone gain between the two groups. With a P value of 0.325, the mean final bone gain in the study group was 4.431.05mm compared to 3.910.65mm in the control group.There is no-statistically-significant difference between the two groups in terms of secondary stability. Secondary stability was 68.923.12 in the study group and 67.891.79 in the control group, with a P value of 0.5004