LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 28 , Issue 2
March/April 2013

Pages 597–604


Comparison of Double-Flap Incision to Periosteal Releasing Incision for Flap Advancement: A Prospective Clinical Trial

Yumi Ogata, DDS, MS/Terrence J. Griffin, DMD/Alexander C. Ko, DMD/Yong Hur, DDS, DMD, MS


PMID: 23527365
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2714

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and morbidity of two periodontal releasing incision techniques in vertical ridge augmentation. Materials and Methods: Twenty-three vertical and horizontal defects (Seibert Class III) were selected to compare the double-flap incision (DFI) to the conventional periosteal releasing incision (PRI). An incision technique was randomly assigned for flap advancement. The amount of flap advancement, the incidence of postsurgical complications, and the level of patient discomfort were compared. Flap advancement was measured with a UNC-15 probe as the difference between the initial elevated flap and the final advanced flap. Postsurgical complications including premature membrane exposure, infection, paresthesia, and continuous discomfort were noted at follow-up visits. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to quantify the amount of pain, swelling, and bleeding in the patients. Results: An average of 9.64 ± 0.92 mm flap advancement was accomplished for DFI, whereas PRI advancement averaged 7.13 ± 1.45 mm (P < .001). Premature membrane exposures occurred in two sites in the PRI group and one site in the DFI group. Paresthesia, infection, and continuous discomfort were noted in one site each in the PRI group. The difference between groups in the incidence of postoperative complications (PRI, 5; DFI, 1) was not significant (P < .082). The mean pain, swelling, and bleeding scores for DFI (1.55 ± 1.21, 1.91 ± 0.94, and 0.40 ± 0.12, respectively) were lower than those of the PRI group (3.75 ± 2.63, 3.25 ± 1.29, and 1.16 ± 0.34, respectively) (P = .019, P = .010, and P = .061, respectively). Conclusions: Flap advancement was facilitated and morbidity was decreased in the DFI group. The technique may have potential to serve as an alternative to PRI to overcome some of the latter’s limitations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:597–604. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2714


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help