ClinicalTrials.gov
public full text
Public Domain
Guided Bone Regeneration With Particulate Versus Block Graft
The aim of present study was to compare two bone augmentation techniques (Guided Bone Regeneration, GBR, with autogenous block graft and GBR with particulate autograft plus xenograft) in terms of efficacy, complications, operational parameters (cost of the materials used, time for patient preparation, time for surgery, fatigue of the physician caused by surgery) tolerability by the patient and patient comfort.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Ridge Augmentation in Posterior Mandible Using Tunneling Technique With Amix of Autogenous Bone and Xenograft With and Without Collagen Membrane#1161921
- Horizontal Ridge Augmentation in Mandible Usign ROG + ESWT#1102843
- Guided Bone Regeneration Around Immediate Implants#804065
- Radiographic Assessment of Deproteinized Porcine Versus Bovine Bone Mineral in Sinus Augmentation#836949
- Functional Recovery of Patients Undergoing Resection and Reconstruction of the Lower Limbs for Bone Tumor.#830475
Record · ID 849270
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive