Home | About us | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Search | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact us |  Login 
National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery
Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Users Online: 932
Ahead of Print

The effect of modern devices of alveolar ridge split and expansion in the management of horizontally deficient alveolar ridge for dental Implant: A systematic review

1 Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Government Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
2 VSPM Dental College and Research Centre, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
3 Private Practice, Manekar's Multispeciality Dental Hospital, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
4 Department of Public Social Medicine, Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Varsha Sunil Manekar,
Government Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur - 441 401, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/njms.njms_423_21

The alveolar ridge split and expansion (ARSE) can be performed using conventional devices (osteotome/chisel) or modern devices (ultrasonographic [USG], motorized ridge expansion [MRE], etc.). The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of modern devices for ARSE. This review has been registered at PROSPERO under the number CRD42020213264. A systematic search was conducted by two reviewers independently in databases PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Grey Open, Hand search of reference lists of relevant studies, and previously published systematic reviews. The article published until September 2020 were searched for this review. The searches identified 24 eligible studies, twenty-two cohort and two randomized control trial studies. A total of 1287 dental implants were installed in 634 patients with the age range of 17–70 years and a minimum of 3 months of follow-up. Ten articles of USG device and seven of MRE device were finally evaluated for metanalysis. The mean ridge width gain was 3.40 mm (USG device) and 2.83 mm (MRE device). The overall implant survival rate was 98.07%. Mean width gain between USG and MRE devices was significantly different (P < 0.0001, HS). Test of heterogeneity was significant (Q = 88.3877, P < 0.0001, HS) and there was no publication bias (Intercept = 6.6634, P = 0.6142, NS) by Egger's test. The most commonly used devices were USG and MRE. USG is more effective for osteo-mobilization type and MRE device for minimally invasive osteo-condensation.

Print this article
  Search Pubmed for
    -  Manekar VS
    -  Shenoi RS
    -  Manekar SM
    -  Morey S
 Citation Manager
 Article Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded18    

Recommend this journal