## 3 Results
### Radiographic Evaluation
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Study Group**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Two-Sample \(t\)-Test**} \\ \hline
**Time of Measurement** & **Mean** & **ETT** & **NETT** & **(\(p\)-Value)** \\ \hline T1 & & & & \\ Mean bucco-palatal alveolar ridge width (mm) & & & & \\ PL, \(n=34\) (SD) & 9.1 (1.5) & 9.4 (1.7) & 8.7 (1.2) & 0.146 \\ RL, \(n=40\) (SD) & 9.0 (1.5) & 9.3 (1.8) & 8.7 (1.1) & 0.205 \\ IL, \(n=45\) (SD) & 9.0 (1.5) & 9.3 (1.8) & 8.8 (1.3) & 0.229 \\ Mean buccal lamella width L0 (mm) & & & & \\ PL, \(n=34\) (SD) & 2.7 (0.9) & 2.6 (1.0) & 2.7 (0.8) & 0.917 \\ RL, \(n=40\) (SD) & 2.6 (0.9) & 2.6 (1.0) & 2.7 (0.8) & 0.742 \\ IL, \(n=45\) (SD) & 2.6 (0.9) & 2.6 (1.0) & 2.7 (0.9) & 0.702 \\ Mean buccal lamella width L2 (mm) & & & & \\ PL, \(n=34\) (SD) & 3.2 (0.9) & 3.4 (1.0) & 3.0 (0.8) & 0.187 \\ RL, \(n=40\) (SD) & 3.1 (0.9) & 3.3 (1.1) & 3.0 (0.8) & 0.314 \\ IL, \(n=45\) (SD) & 3.2 (0.9) & 3.3 (1.0) & 3.0 (0.8) & 0.391 \\ Mean buccal lamella width L4 (mm) & & & & \\ PL, \(n=34\) (SD) & 3.5 (1.3) & 3.9 (1.5) & 3.1 (1.0) & 0.079 \\ RL, \(n=40\) (SD) & 3.4 (0.9) & 3.8 (1.5) & 3.1 (1.0) & 0.096 \\ IL, \(n=45\) (SD) & 3.4 (1.3) & 3.8 (1.5) & 3.2 (1.1) & 0.118 \\ T2 & & & & \\ Mean bucco-palatal alveolar ridge width (mm) & & & & \\ PL, \(n=34\) (SD) & 8.7 (1.4) & 9.1 (1.7) & 8.2 (1.0) & 0.073 \\ RL, \(n=40\) (SD) & 8.6 (1.4) & 9.0 (1.7) & 8.2 (1.0) & 0.101 \\ IL, \(n=45\) (SD) & 8.6 (1.4) & 9.0 (1.7) & 8.3 (1.0) & 0.077 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Mean alveolar ridge bone measurements directly after grafting (T1) and at time of follow up (T2). Figure 4: CBCTs after lateral ridge augmentation with simultaneous implantation and after implant exposure. (**a**) A CBCT in the sagittal plane shows an implant region 12 with TST at the time of lateral ridge augmentation. The buccal tooth shell is clearly visible. Dotted lines trace the outline of the alveolar ridge. The measurement of the bucco-oral alveolar ridge width was performed at level L2. In this case, the ridge width was 9.3 mm. (**b**) The same procedure of the measurement of the bucco-oral alveolar ridge width was performed at the time of implant exposure. The tooth shell shows some resorption only at L0. (**c**) Measurements of the thickness of the buccal bone lamella at three different levels (L0, L2, and L4) at the time of lateral ridge augmentation. (**d**) Measurements of the thickness of the buccal bone lamella at three different levels (L0, L2, and L4) at the time of implant exposure. The mean thickness (at the patient level) of the buccal lamella was, at the time of bone graft T1/L0, 2.6 mm in the ETT group and 2.7 mm in the NETT group; at T1/L2, 3.4 mm for ETT and 3.0 mm for NETT; and at T1/L4, 3.9 mm for ETT and 3.1 mm for NETT; and at the time of follow-up T2/L0, 2.2 mm in ETT and 2.2 mm in NETT; at T2/L2, 3.2 mm in ETT and 2.7 mm in NETT; and at T2/L4, 3.7 mm in ETT and 2.8 mm in NETT. The resorption of the buccal lamella was, at T1-2/L0, 0.4 mm in ETT and 0.5 mm in NETT; at T1-2/L2, 0.2 mm in ETT and 0.3 mm in NETT (Table 4). Since 0.3 mm in ETT and 0.5 mm in NETT resorption of the alveolar ridge width occurred in T1-2/L2, the oral lamella must also have resorption of 0.1 mm ETT and 0.2 mm in NETT. In all cases with TST, the dentin shell was clearly visible. The ratio of the bucco-oral alveolar crest width (at patient level) between T1 and T2 was 0.97 for ETT and 0.96 for NETT. For the thickness buccal lamella the ratio between T1 and T2 was at L0 0.85 for ETT and 0.84 for NETT, at L2 0.96 for ETT and 0.91 for NETT and at L4 0.97 for ETT and 0.90 for NETT (Table 5).