News Reader.info

ABSTRACT This study evaluated the use of bone ring technique with xenogeneic bone grafts in treating horizontal alveolar bone defects. In total, 11 patients in need of horizontal bone

augmentation treatment before implant placement were included in this retrospective study. All patients received simultaneous bone augmentation surgery and implant placement with xenogeneic

bone ring grafts. We evaluated the postoperative efficacy of the bone ring technique with xenogeneic bone grafts using radiographical and clinical parameters. Survival rates of implants were

100%. Cone-beam computed tomography revealed that the xenogeneic bone ring graft had significantly sufficient horizontal bone augmentation below the implant neck platform to 0 mm, 1 mm, 2 

mm, and 3 mm. It could also provide an excellent peri-implant tissue condition during the 1-year follow-up after loading. The bone ring technique with xenogeneic bone ring graft could

increase and maintain horizontal bone mass in the region of the implant neck platforms in serious horizontal bone defects. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS VIABLE CRYOPRESERVED HUMAN

BONE GRAFT EXHIBIT SUPERIOR OSTEOGENIC PROPERTIES IN MANDIBULAR LATERAL AUGMENTATION Article Open access 25 January 2023 HARD TISSUE STABILITY AFTER GUIDED BONE REGENERATION: A COMPARISON

BETWEEN DIGITAL TITANIUM MESH AND RESORBABLE MEMBRANE Article Open access 16 November 2021 LONGITUDINAL COMPARATIVE STUDY ON OSTEOGENIC CAPACITY USING TWO COLLAGENATED XENOGRAFTS IN

ARTIFICIAL BONE DEFECTS IN BEAGLES Article Open access 26 March 2025 INTRODUCTION Over the years, implants have been utilized as the first-choice treatment to repair dental defects. Several

factors critical to the long-term survival of implants and implant support for reconstruction have been identified. A prerequisite is a sufficient bone receptor site that allows for

osseointegration on the surface of the implant especially in the esthetic area1,2. Reports indicate that with implant placement, bone augmentation is often required before implantation in

the site within 3 mm bone thickness or with a horizontal bone deficiency in the class III–IV defects3,4. Various surgical techniques have been described for augmenting the class III–IV

horizontal defects, for example, guided bone regeneration (GBR) with titanium-mesh, bone block grafting, and distraction methods5,6,7. Although several clinical trials have proved that the

above methods are effective in increasing bone volume3,8, they still have some drawbacks, among them, long treatment time for the two-staged implant placement, extra trauma in the secondary

surgical site, and increased risk of infection9,10,11. In this context, increasing studies have explored simultaneous bone augmentation technique and implant placement (Bone Ring Technique)

in recent years6,12,13. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the bone ring technique integrated with an autogenous bone block can offer excellent outcome for dimensional bone

augmentation6,10,12,13,14,15,16. With this technique, the implant is simultaneously placed with the bone augmentation procedure which both reduces the treatment time and maintains a

sufficiently stable spatial structure17. Besides, due to the osteoinductive, osteoconductive, and osteogenic properties of autogenous grafts, clinicians in most cases graft the autogenous

bone block to reconstruct the alveolar defects in this approach18. Nevertheless, autogenous bone harvesting usually requires an additional surgical site which may aggravate intraoperative

pain and increase surgical time, complications, donor site morbidity19. Thus, inadequacies with the approach of autogenous bone ring deter patients from choosing this therapy. Also, it

cannot provide sufficient bone grafts in cases where bone defects are severe in multiple implant areas. Presently, a few clinical trials have started to explore the application of bone

substitute materials in the bone ring technique to achieve sufficient bone augmentation and circumvent the deficiency of autogenous grafts12,13,15. A wealth of clinical trials demonstrated

that the allogeneic grafts, xenografts, and synthetic materials are efficient just like the autogenous bone to increase bone volume thereby avoiding extra surgical site3,8,20. However,

allogeneic grafts can easily fracture due to their poor biomechanical properties, also, they may induce immunologic tissue reactions and risk of disease transmission21. Therefore, xenogeneic

bone substitute materials have been reported as an alternative to autologous bone grafts22. With the increasing research evidence, low manufacturing cost, the xenogeneic bone grafts are

easy to acquire23,24. Moreover, researchers through animal experiments, have compared the histological characteristics of many widely used bone grafts for filling bone defects, such as

autogenous bone, allogeneic grafts, bovine cancellous bone, calcium phosphate hydroxyapatite substitute, and calcium sulfate substitute. The highest histological score was reported using

autogenous bone, followed by bovine cancellous bone, however, scores of all other grafts were inferior to bovine cancellous bone25. Consequently, this study aimed to assess the clinical

effect of xenogeneic grafts application following simultaneous implant placement with bone ring technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS INITIAL SITUATION We performed a retrospective analysis on

patients with class III–IV alveolar ridge defects who received treatment in the Department of Stomatology, Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital between December 2017 and June 2020. All

patients had defects at the implant sites and were radiologically diagnosed with horizontal bone defects.All enrolled patients were fully informed of the study and they signed written

informed consent. Notably, 11 patients were included in this study after meeting the following inclusion criteria: * (1) When the three-dimensional bone defects in the missing teeth area

should be classified as class III-IV defects in the horizontal direction. * (2) Patients with good general health without any prolonged disorders, such as TMJ disorders and any other

systemic disease. * (3) Patients who cooperated with the preoperative examination and postoperative follow-up with subjective planting intention. Besides, patients with conditions of drug or

smoke abuse, uncontrolled periodontitis, those who underwent bisphosphonate and irradiation to the head and neck region within 5 years were excluded from the study. ETHICS The institutional

ethics committee of Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital approved the study (No. 2017KY049), which was performed according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written

informed consent was obtained from the patients or from the guardians of the patients younger than 18 years. All identifying images released in this article were authorized for publication

by the patient and his guardians. SURGICAL PROCEDURES All selected patients underwent periodontal and dental examinations before surgery and received effective periodontal treatment. One

experienced surgeon conducted the surgeries with local anesthesia (Articaine hydrochloride 4%; Epinephrine, 1:100,000). First, the implant site was prepared using the pioneer drill of the

implant system with midcrestal incision and buccal mucoperiosteal flap. Then, the bone defective area around the implant site was prepared using the trephine bur to fit the recipient area to

the xenogeneic bone ring graft. This was followed by insertion of the dental implant through the xenogeneic bone ring which was in 7 mm outer ring diameter and the implant was positioned

about 1–2 mm below the coronal border of the ring. Thereafter, the graft was fixated with the dental implant, about 3–4 mm of the implant length was into the bone ring, and more than 5 mm

into the alveolar bone. The implants were provided with primary stability using an insertion torque of 25–35 Ncm. The remaining free space in the defect was filled with bovine bone

substitute (Geistlich Bio‐oss, Geistlich Pharma, Wolhusen, Switzerland) with the patient's blood and covered with a collagen membrane (Geistlich Bio‐Gide, Geistlich Pharma, Wolhusen,

Switzerland). Eventually, the flaps were repositioned and sutured free of tension carefully to prevent dehiscence (Fig. 1). All Patients were administered with 500 mg amoxicillin thrice a

day for 3 days. PROSTHETIC PROCEDURE The implants were submerged for 6 months of healing. Then, re-entry was conducted with a full-thickness mucoperiosteum flap at the same surgical site of

bone augmentation and healing abutments were placed for 2 months to shape the gingiva, whereas the crowns were rehabilitated 8 months post-surgery. CLINICAL EVALUATION Radiographic

examinations were performed at preoperation, immediate postoperative, and 12 months after prosthetic restorations using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) (Fig. 2). Thus, we could evaluate

the effects of bone augmentation and the progression of bone resorption especially at the implant shoulders and the apical zones of the implants. A measurement of the bone widths was taken

around the implants in the plane perpendicular to the long axis of the implants by utilizing a CBCT ProMax 3D Mid unit (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finlandia). We took measurements in the parallel

planes which were below the implant neck platform to 0 mm, 1 mm, 2 mm, and 3 mm (Fig. 3). Therefore, the amount of horizontal bone mass could be obtained in each part to evaluate the

horizontal bone gain and the resorption of the xenogeneic bone. During the process, 2 physicians repeated the measurement in triplicate and re-measured it 2 weeks later. The average data of

the repetitions were taken for statistical analysis. Furthermore, we evaluated other clinical parameters of the implants to assess the treatment outcomes of this study in terms of implant

success rates, peri-implant tissue condition (including plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP) and gingival index (GI)) and complications during the 1-year follow-up period after

loading. * PI = score range of 0–3: no plaque (score = 0), a film of plaque cannot be seen with the naked eye but only by using a probe(score = 1), moderate accumulation of deposits (score =

 2) and abundance of soft matter (score = 3)26. * BOP = score range of 0–3: no bleeding (score = 0), small punctuated bleeding (score = 1), redline bleeding on the margin(score = 2) or

profuse bleeding (score = 3)26. * GI = score range of 0–3: no (score = 0), mild (score = 1), moderate(score = 2) or severe (score = 3) inflammation27. STATISTICAL ANALYSES The statistical

analysis was performed using SPSS 19.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) (https://www.hearne.software/spss-selection). The same process was repeated 1 week later to assess measurement

accuracy.Descriptive data were presented as means ± SDs. Descriptive data of different follow-up periods were examined using the Student t-test, p-value < 0.05 was considered

statistically significant. RESULTS We included 11 patients (8 males and 3 females with an average age of 49.91 ± 12.95 years) at the time of implant placement. Detailed information of all

patients is highlighted in Table 1. During the follow-up period, one patient presented with a fracture of the wound 1-week post-surgery but healed after receiving secondary intervention

without further developing complications. Twelve implants were performed in both anterior and posterior regions. Notably, the implant success rate was 100%, following the commonly accepted

implant success criteria (the ICOI Pisa consensus in 2007)28,29. No major biological complications were witnessed. The average values of PI, BOP, and GI index of the implants were less than

two points at the immediate prosthetic restorations (T1’), and 1 year after loading (T2), this indicated the stability of peri‐implant tissue condition. However, no significant difference

was observed during the observation period (Table 2). And we found the marginal bone loss was 1.46 ± 0.38 mm in the buccal side of the implants through the CBCT 1 year after prosthetic

restorations. For horizontal bone gain, the mean bone gain at four planes (0 mm, 1 mm, 2 mm, 3 mm) were 2.40 ± 0.31 mm, 2.81 ± 0.45 mm, 3.35 ± 0.50 mm, 3.76 ± 0.53 mm at immediate

postoperative and 1.95 ± 0.19 mm, 2.39 ± 0.38 mm, 2.91 ± 0.56 mm, 3.28 ± 0.63 mm at 12 months after prosthetic restorations. Notably, significant decreases which indicated the mean bone

resorption were observed at four planes (p < 0.05). The mean bone resorption at four planes were 0.45 ± 0.28 mm, 0.41 ± 0.36 mm, 0.43 ± 0.31 mm, 0.48 ± 0.31 mm (Table 3), and bone

absorption rates were 17.78 ± 9.03%, 13.86 ± 10.55%, 13.02 ± 8.85%, 12.96 ± 8.36% at four levels. DISCUSSION The bone ring technique, first reported by Giesenhagen, can offer

three‑dimensional augmentation with simultaneous implant placement in a single-stage procedure30,31,32. Bone ring technique is highly significant compared to conventional bone grafting in

treating serious defects, in terms of reducing the whole treatment time31,32,33,34. However, the autogenous bone ring technique may provide an extra surgical site, increase the risk of

infection, and paraesthesia of chin through the incisal nerve injury19. All the attributed complications may discourage patients from going for this treatment. Thus, the application of bone

substitute materials is regarded to be increasingly vital and urgent for bone ring technique. Based on previous reports, the allogeneic bone ring grafts had been used in a few clinical

trials12,13,15,35 and got sufficient bone augmentation. Still, the application of allogeneic grafts is restricted by factors such as high cost, limited sources, the risk of disease

transmission, and immunologic tissue reactions. In this context, the xenogeneic bone has been widely used clinically for its excellent biomechanical properties, bone conductibilities, and a

wide range of sources. A study revealed that bovine cancellous bone exhibits better histological characteristics than other bone substitutes25. Therefore, we chose the bovine cancellous bone

(Hell-all, Zhenghai Biotechnology Co., Ltd, Yantai, China) as the bone ring material to repair serious dental defects. The material is made of bovine cancellous bone after decellularization

and degreasing treatment, thereby fully retains the type I collagen and hydroxyapatite components in the natural bone composition. The natural three-dimensional porous structure of the

material (aperture 50–600 μm) can promote new bone growth and regulate bone regeneration36. Bone cylinders made from bovine cancellous were utilized for the grafts, and we used the pioneer

drill of the implant system to change the bone substitute to the ring shape. The bone ring and the implant site were drilled via the continued-drills of the implant to ensure a high degree

of match between the implant and the graft. Since the implant diameter needed to be more than 3 mm for strength, at least 1–2 mm space was reserved around the shoulder of the implant to

ensure the success of bone grafting. The application of the xenogeneic bone ring technique requires that the medial distal dimension of the receptor site be more than 7 mm. In this study, we

found that the wide and flat platform of the bone ring made it difficult to obtain perfect gingival nipples for single implant restoration in the aesthetic area of the anterior teeth.

Therefore, we chose the 7 mm diameter xenogeneic bone cylinder as the graft measure and used the bone ring in the posterior region and the region of multiple anterior teeth loss. For the

above reasons, it is unsuitable to use the xenogeneic bone ring to repair the defect in a narrow mesiodistal dimension site, particularly, in the aesthetic area. According to previous

investigations, the new bone formation ratios of deproteinized bovine bone (DPB) and human-derived allogenic bone (HALG) have been revealed to be about 43.63 ± 6.30%, 45.25 ± 6.71% using the

titanium barriers in severe defects37,38. There was no significant difference in the rate of new bone formation between the two materials. Therefore, we selected the xenogeneic bone grafts

which could be easy to acquire as the material to assess the clinical effect of xenogeneic grafts application following simultaneous implant placement with bone ring technique in horizontal

bone defect implantations. Herein, we showed that the xenogeneic bone ring had extremely efficient abilities in maintaining a stable space, especially in the region of the implant neck

platform. The new bone formation ratios around the neck of the implants ranged from 82.22 ± 9.03 to 87.04 ± 8.36%, and bone width augmentation was revealed to be more than 1.5 mm after 12 

months of prosthetic restorations. The great graft stability and mechanical support of the xenogeneic bone ring technique could obtain satisfactory bone augmentation to repair the tooth loss

with severe bone defects in a horizontal direction. In recent study, Yohei reported that osseointegration in the vertical bone augmented area showed low new bone to implant contact in the

xenogeneic group39. While they also pointed out due to the surrounding of collagen fibers, osteoblasts could not grow into the xenogeneic ring structure. It might be the reason why

xenogeneic ring presented low new bone formation in the animal experiment. They thought covering with a membrane was necessary to prevent tissue ingrowth other than bone when using

xenogeneic bone material for vertical bone augmentation. Therefore,we mainly applied the xenogeneic bone rings technique to the cases of horizontal bone defects, because we believe that in

the cases of vertical bone defects, the xenobone ring technique because of the existence of the soft tissue pressure may not be able to obtain satisfactory results. The xenogeneic bone ring

technique is not suitable for complete vertical bone defects, such as class V–VI defects. So In this study, we studied the clinical application effect of xenogenic bone ring technique in

horizontal bone defect implantation, and reduced the influence of surrounding collagen fibers through membrane coverage. Of course, further researches are needed to evaluate the incidence of

complications and the marginal bone loss after a longer observational time and a larger-scale clinical trial to validate this approach. Of note, one of the keys to utilizing this method is

to control the position of the ring in relation to the implant position when preparing for implantation. Therefore, future research directions should be geared towards integrating bone ring

technology with digital technology to control the precision of the implantation process. CONCLUSION In summary, we affirmed that the bone ring technique with xenogeneic bone ring graft is a

predictable treatment option for future horizontal bone augmentation. Our study illustrated the benefits of the xenogeneic bone ring for the regeneration of alveolar bone. This approach

could increase and maintain horizontal bone mass in class III–IV defects in the horizontal direction. It could also reduce the treatment time with simultaneous implant placement in a

single‑stage procedure, and avoid additional surgical site. Therefore, this technique may be a favorable treatment choice regarding severe horizontally bone defects. REFERENCES * Buser, D.,

Martin, W. & Belser, U. C. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: Anatomic and surgical considerations. _Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants_ 19(suppl),

43–61 (2004). PubMed  Google Scholar  * Buser, D., Chappuis, V., Belser, U. C. & Chen, S. Implant placement post extraction in esthetic single tooth sites: When immediate, when early,

when late?. _Periodontology_ 73, 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12170 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  * Benic, G. I. & Hämmerle, C. H. F. Horizontal bone augmentation by means of

guided bone regeneration. _Periodontology_ 66(1), 13–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12039 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Cawood, J. I. & Howell, R. A. A classification of the

edentulous jaws. _Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg._ 17(4), 232–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0901-5027(88)80047-x (1988). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Chihiro, M., Nakamoto, T.,

Taro, M., Yusuke, K. & Ryuji, H. Strategies for alveolar ridge reconstruction and preservation for implant therapy. _J. Prosthodont. Res._ 59, 220–228.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2015.04.005 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Omara, M., Abdelwahed, N., Ahmed, M. & Hindy, M. Simultaneous implant placement with ridge augmentation

using an autogenous bone ring transplant. _Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg._ 45, 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.11.001 (2016). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Tekin, U.,

Kocyigit, D. I. & Sahin, V. Symphyseal bone cylinders tapping with the dental implant into insufficiency bone situated esthetic area at one-stage surgery: A case report and the

description of the new technique. _J. Oral Implantol._ 37, 589–594. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-09-00096.1 (2011). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Urban, I. A., Jovanovic, S. A.

& Lozada, J. L. Vertical ridge augmentation using guided bone regeneration (gbr) in three clinical scenarios prior to implant placement: A retrospective study of 35 patients 12 to 72

months after loading. _Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants_ 24(3), 502–510 (2009). PubMed  Google Scholar  * Meloni, S. M. _et al._ Horizontal ridge augmentation using GBR with a native

collagen membrane and 1:1 ratio of particulate xenograft and autologous bone: A 3-year after final loading prospective clinical study. _Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res._ 21(4), 669–677.

https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12808 (2019). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Nakahara, K. _et al._ Single-staged implant placement using the bone ring technique with and without membrane

placement: Micro-CT analysis in a preclinical in vivo study. _Clin. Oral Implants Res._ 31(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13543 (2020). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Roccuzzo,

M., Ramieri, G., Bunino, M. & Berrone, S. Autogenous bone graft alone or associated with titanium mesh for vertical alveolar ridge augmentation: A controlled clinical trial. _Clin. Oral

Implants Res._ 18, 286–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01301.x (2007). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Giesenhagen, B., Martin, N., Jung, O. & Barbeck, M. Bone

augmentation and simultaneous implant placement with allogenic bone rings and analysis of its purification success. _Materials_ 12(8), 1291. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12081291 (2019).

Article  ADS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Simpson, K. T. _et al._ Computer-guided surgery using the “allograft ring technique” with simultaneous implant placement: A case report.

_Clin. Adv. Periodont._ 10(1), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/cap.10073 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Chandra, R. V., Shivateja, K. & Reddy, A. A. Autogenous bone ring transplant vs

autologous growth factor-enriched bone graft matrix in extraction sockets with deficient buccal bone: A comparative clinical study. _Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants_ 34(6), 1424–1433.

https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7614 (2019). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Giesenhagen, B. _et al._ Vertical bone augmentation in a single-tooth gap with an allogenic bone ring: Clinical

considerations. _J. Esthet. Restor. Dent._ 30(6), 480–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12392 (2018). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Nakahara, K. _et al._ Single-staged vs two-staged

implant placement using bone ring technique in vertically deficient alveolar ridges-part 1: Histomorphometric and micro-CT analysis. _Clin. Oral Implants Res._ 27(11), 1384–1391.

https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12751 (2016). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Benlidayi, M. E., Tatli, U., Salimov, F., Tukel, H. C. & Yuksel, O. Comparison of autogenous and allograft

bone rings in surgically created vertical bone defects around implants in a sheep model. _Clin. Oral Implants Res._ 29, 1155–1162. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13379 (2018). Article  PubMed 

Google Scholar  * Khoury, F. & Hanser, T. Mandibular bone block harvesting from the retromolar region: A 10-year prospective clinical study. _Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants_ 30,

688–697. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4117 (2015). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Mendoza-Azpur, G., de la Fuente, A., Chavez, E., Valdivia, E. & Khouly, I. Horizontal ridge

augmentation with guided bone regeneration usingparticulate xenogenic bone substitutes with or without autogenousblock grafts: A randomized controlled trial. _Clin. Implant Dent. Relat.

Res._ 21(4), 521–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12740 (2019). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Al-Nawas, B. & Schiegnitz, E. Augmentation procedures using bone substitute materials

or autogenous bone—A systematic review and meta-analysis. _Eur. J. Oral Implantol._ 7, s219–s234 (2014). PubMed  Google Scholar  * Wong, M. L. & Griffiths, L. G. Immunogenicity in

xenogeneic scaffold generation: Antigen removal vs decellularization. _Acta Biomater._ 10, 1806–1816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio (2014). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google

Scholar  * Accorsi-Mendonça, T. _et al._ Physicochemical characterization of two deproteinized bovine xenografts. _Braz. Oral Res._ 22(1), 5–10.

https://doi.org/10.1590/s1806-8324200800010000 (2008). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Bi, L. _et al._ Evaluation of a novel reconstituted bone xenograft using processed bovine cancellous

bone in combination with purified bovine bone morphogenetic protein. _Xenotransplantation_ 19(2), 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3089 (2012). Article  Google Scholar  * Naso, F.,

Gandaglia, A., Iop, L., Spina, M. & Gerosa, G. Alpha-Gal detectors in xenotransplantation research: A word of caution. _Xenotransplantation_ 19(4), 215–220.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3089.2012.00714.x (2012). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Athanasiou, V. T., Papachristou, D. J. & Panagopoulos, A. Histological comparison of

autograft, allograft-DBM, xenograft, and synthetic grafts in a trabecular bone defect: An experimental study in rabbits. _Med. Sci. Monit._ 16(1), 24–31 (2010). Google Scholar  * Mombelli,

A., van Oosten, M. A., Schurch, E. & Land, N. P. The microbiota associated with successful or failing osseointegrated titaniumimplants. _Oral Microbiol. Immunol._ 2(4), 145–151.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-302X.1987.tb00298.x (1987). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Loe, H. & Silness, J. Periodontal disease in pregnancy. I. Prevalence and severity.

_Acta Odontol. Scandi._ 21, 533–551. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016356309011240 (1963). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Buser, D., Weber, H. P., Bragger, U. & Balsiger, C. Tissue

integration of one-stage ITI implants: 3-year results of a longitudinal study with hollow-cylinder and hollow-screw implants. _Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants_ 6, 405–412 (1991). CAS 

PubMed  Google Scholar  * Misch, C. E. _et al._ Implant success, survival, and failure: The International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. _Implant Dent._

17, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181676059 (2008). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Draenert, F. G., Huetzen, D., Kämmerer, P. & Wagner, W. Bone augmentation in dental

implantology using press-fit bone cylinders and twin-principle diamond hollow drills: A case series. _Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res._ 13, 238–243.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00199.x (2011). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Giesenhagen, B. Die einzeitige vertikale augmentation mit ringförmigen knochentransplantaten. _Z.

Zahnärztl Implantol._ 24, 43–46 (2008). Google Scholar  * Stevens, M. R., Emam, H. A., Alaily, M. E. & Sharawy, M. Implant bone rings. One-stage three-dimensional bone transplant

technique: A case report. _J. Oral Implantol._ 36, 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-09-00029 (2010). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Friberg, B. Bone augmentation for single

tooth implants: A review of the literature. _Eur. J. Oral Implantol._ 9(suppl 1), s123–s134 (2016). PubMed  Google Scholar  * Milinkovic, I. & Cordaro, L. Are there specific indications

for the different alveolar bone augmentation procedures for implant placement? A systematic review. _Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg._ 43, 606–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2013.12.004

(2014). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Monje, A. _et al._ On the feasibility of utilizing allogeneic bone blocks for atrophic maxillary augmentation. _Biomed. Res. Int._ 2014,

814578. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/814578 (2014). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Likibi, F., Chabot, G., Assad, M. & Rivard, C. H. Influence of orthopedic implant

structure on adjacent bone density and on stability. _Am. J. Orthop._ 37(4), E78-83 (2008). PubMed  Google Scholar  * Gokhan, A. _et al._ A comparison of different bone graft materials in

peri-implant guided bone regeneration. _Braz. Oral Res._ 32, e59. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0059 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * Rakhmatia, Y. D., Ayukawa, Y.,

Furuhashi, A. & Koyano, K. Current barrier membranes: Titanium mesh and other membranes for guided bone regeneration in dental applications. _J. Prosthodont. Res._ 57, 3–14.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2012.12.001 (2013). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Jinno, Y. _et al._ Vertical bone augmentation using ring technique with three different materials in the

sheep mandible bone. _Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants_ 33(5), 1057–1063. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6278 (2018). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was supported by Zhejiang Public Welfare Project Fund (No. LGF18H140006),Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province,People's Republic of China. AUTHOR INFORMATION

AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Department of Stomatology, Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital, People’s Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, 310014, Zhejiang, People’s Republic of

China Yude Ding, Jinxing Gao & Gang Cheng * Department of Stomatology of Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, Anhui, People’s Republic of China Lianfei Wang, Kuiwei Su & Xiao Li Authors *

Yude Ding View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Lianfei Wang View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google

Scholar * Kuiwei Su View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Jinxing Gao View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed 

Google Scholar * Xiao Li View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Gang Cheng View author publications You can also search for this author

inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS Y.D: Study design, clinical procedures, data analysis, interpretation of results, drafting and writing of the final article L.W: Data acquisition,data

analysis, approving final article K.S: Data curation,approving final article J.G: Data curation,approving final article X.L: Data curation, approving final article G.C: Study design,

clinical procedures, data analysis, interpretation of results, drafting and approving of the final article. All authors reviewed the manuscript. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Gang

Cheng. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER'S NOTE Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to

jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,

provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative

Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not

permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Ding, Y., Wang, L., Su, K. _et al._ Horizontal bone augmentation and simultaneous

implant placement using xenogeneic bone rings technique: a retrospective clinical study. _Sci Rep_ 11, 4947 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84401-8 Download citation * Received:

20 December 2020 * Accepted: 15 February 2021 * Published: 02 March 2021 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84401-8 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be

able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing

initiative