We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 32 (2017), No. 5     19. Sep. 2017
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 32 (2017), No. 5  (19.09.2017)

Page 1103-1110, doi:10.11607/jomi.5275, PubMed:28520823

Comparison of Tunnel and Crestal Incision Techniques in Reconstruction of Localized Alveolar Defects
Altiparmak, Nur / Uckan, Sina / Bayram, Burak / Soydan, Sıdıka
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the complication rates of recipient sites prepared using two incision techniques: crestal and tunnel.
Materials and Methods: In this prospective study, patients underwent augmentation procedures (68 patients; 75 sites) by the same surgeon that were performed consecutively using the crestal incision technique (27 horizontal, 10 vertical; crestal group) or the tunnel incision technique (27 horizontal, 11 vertical; tunnel group). Autogenous bone block grafts were harvested with a piezoelectric surgical device, and the grafts were fixed at the recipient sites by two titanium screws in both groups. The authors evaluated minor exposure, transient paresthesia, major exposure, permanent paresthesia, gingival recession at adjacent teeth, surgery time, and visual analog scale pain scores.
Results: Soft tissue dehiscence and graft failure were significantly lower in patients undergoing the tunnel technique.
Conclusion: The tunnel incision technique significantly decreased soft tissue exposure, the most common complication of augmentation procedures with autogenous onlay bone grafts. This technique should be considered an alternative to the crestal incision technique for preparation of the recipient site.

Keywords: alveolar ridge augmentation, autogenous bone, complication, failure, minimally invasive surgery, subperiosteal tunnel technique