الفهرس 
Title : Accuracy of computer guided versus conventional ridge splitting of hprizontal deficent in maxillary anterior alveolar ridge A randomized clinical trial /
AbstractOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 110 |  |  |
| | | from | 110 | | |
Abstract
Aim:This study was conducted to assess and compare clinically and radiographically the effectiveness of computer guided technique in ridge splitting over the conventional technique. In augmenting the horizontal deficient anterior maxilla.Methodology:Horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation technique was performed in patients with narrow maxillary ridge. 10 patients (3females and 7 males) with an average age 46.The two groups underwent ridge splitting technique utilizing either: group A: computer guided group (study group): Received computer-guided ridge splitting technique. group B: conventional group (control group): Received conventional ridge splitting technique.32 implants were placed for 10 patients, where they classified randomly into two groups, each included five patients. the study group received 14 implants while the control group received 18 implants.Results:The randomized clinical study was conducted on 10 cases that were randomly and equally allocated to the tested groups (i.e. 5 cases per group).The mean age of the cases in the computer-guided group was (47.00±11.05) years and it consisted of 3(60%) males and 2(40%) females.While in the conventional group, the mean age of the cases was (46.33±14.22) years and it had 4(80%) males and 1(20%) female. There was no significant difference between the age (p=0.947) and sex distribution (p=1) in both groups.Mean value of difference in accuracy of conventional group (0.54±0.29) was higher than mean value of computer guided group (0.29±0.26) yet the difference was not significant (p=0.189). -Mean value of bone gain of computer guided group (2.81±0.58) was higher than mean value of conventional group (2.32±0.16) yet the difference was not significant (p=0.106).At baseline, a higher value was measured in the conventional group, while at other follow-up intervals the computer-guided group had higher values. For all intervals, the difference between both groups was not statistically significant (p>0.05)