Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 08 Oct 2020

Influence of Different Incision Designs on Flap Extension: A Cadaveric Animal Model

DDS,
DDS, MS,
DDS, MS,
DDS, MS, PhD, and
DDS, MS, PhD
Page Range: 395 – 400
DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-20-00026
Save
Download PDF

It is well known that wound dehiscence is one of the most frequent complications in guided bone regeneration. The main cause of this complication may be a lack of tension-free and primary wound closure. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effect of periosteal releasing incisions (PRI) on the extension of 3 different flap designs: envelope, triangular, and trapezoidal. Twelve pig mandibles were used to quantify extension of the flap designs. The mandibles were equally and randomly distributed into the 3 flap groups. Each mandible was divided into 2 sides: 1 was subjected to a PRI and the other not. The flap was pulled with a force of 1.08 N, and the extension was recorded. The subgroups without PRI showed an average extension of 5.14 mm with no statistically significant differences among them (P = .165). The PRI provided an average extension of 7.37 mm with statistically significant differences among the subgroups (P < .001). The releasing incisions significantly increased flap extension in each flap design. The increase in extension of the trapezoidal flap with PRI was significantly greater than in the other subgroups. In cases where primary closure is required, surgeons should consider performing trapezoidal flaps with PRI in order to reduce tension.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Lingual view of envelope flap under traction. The flap is pulled along a calibrated implant bur to help measure flap extension.


Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Photographic registry of each flap extension. (a) Envelope flap without periosteal-releasing incision (PRI). (b) Envelope flap with PRI. (c) Triangular flap without PRI. (d) Triangular flap with PRI. (e) Trapezoidal flap without PRI. (f) Trapezoidal flap with PRI.


Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Box plot displaying flap extension of the 6 subgroups (in mm).


Contributor Notes

Corresponding author, e-mail: ocamps@ub.edu
  • Download PDF