BACKGROUND: Various materials have been used immediately following tooth extraction to fill and/or cover the socket in an attempt to limit or prevent ridge resorption. The purpose of the present pilot study was to establish a reliable model to investigate the effect of various bone graft and bone replacement materials on extraction socket healing. This study also compared healing extraction sockets 6 to 8 months postimplantation of a bioactive glass (BG) or demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) to an unfilled socket control (C). METHODS: Following tooth extraction, a total of 30 sockets in 19 patients were randomly divided into 3 treatment groups: 10 sockets received BG, 10 sockets DFDBA, and 10 sockets served as unfilled controls. Primary coverage was achieved by flap advancement over each socket. Six to 8 months postextraction at time of implant placement, histological cores of the treatment sites were obtained. These cores were processed, undecalcified sections prepared and stained with Stevenel blue/van Gieson's picric fuchsin, and histomorphometrically analyzed. Vital bone, connective tissue and marrow, and residual graft particles were reported as a percentage of the total core. RESULTS: A model system was described in humans and used to evaluate the healing response in the 3 treatment groups. Results concluded that mean vital bone present was 59.5% for BG-, 34.7% for DFDBA-, and 32.4% for C-treated sites. These differences were not statistically significant. However, the residual implant material was significantly higher in DFDBA-treated (13.5%) versus BG-treated sockets (5.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the differences in percent vital bone were not statistically significant among the 3 treatment groups in this pilot study, BG material was observed to act as an osteoconductive material which had a positive effect on socket healing at 6 to 8 months postextraction. Further research following implant placement in treated and control sockets is warranted to determine if bone implant contact is improved in BG-filled versus unfilled sockets.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Various materials have been used immediately following tooth extraction to fill and/or cover the socket in an attempt to limit or prevent ridge resorption. The purpose of the present pilot study was to establish a reliable model to investigate the effect of various bone graft and bone replacement materials on extraction socket healing. This study also compared healing extraction sockets 6 to 8 months postimplantation of a bioactive glass (BG) or demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) to an unfilled socket control (C). METHODS: Following tooth extraction, a total of 30 sockets in 19 patients were randomly divided into 3 treatment groups: 10 sockets received BG, 10 sockets DFDBA, and 10 sockets served as unfilled controls. Primary coverage was achieved by flap advancement over each socket. Six to 8 months postextraction at time of implant placement, histological cores of the treatment sites were obtained. These cores were processed, undecalcified sections prepared and stained with Stevenel blue/van Gieson's picric fuchsin, and histomorphometrically analyzed. Vital bone, connective tissue and marrow, and residual graft particles were reported as a percentage of the total core. RESULTS: A model system was described in humans and used to evaluate the healing response in the 3 treatment groups. Results concluded that mean vital bone present was 59.5% for BG-, 34.7% for DFDBA-, and 32.4% for C-treated sites. These differences were not statistically significant. However, the residual implant material was significantly higher in DFDBA-treated (13.5%) versus BG-treated sockets (5.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the differences in percent vital bone were not statistically significant among the 3 treatment groups in this pilot study, BG material was observed to act as an osteoconductive material which had a positive effect on socket healing at 6 to 8 months postextraction. Further research following implant placement in treated and control sockets is warranted to determine if bone implant contact is improved in BG-filled versus unfilled sockets.
Authors: Attila Horváth; Nikos Mardas; Luis André Mezzomo; Ian G Needleman; Nikos Donos Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Momen A Atieh; Nabeel H M Alsabeeha; Alan G T Payne; Warwick Duncan; Clovis M Faggion; Marco Esposito Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-05-28
Authors: Andreas L Ioannou; Georgios A Kotsakis; Tarun Kumar; James E Hinrichs; Georgios Romanos Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: L Canullo; M Del Fabbro; S Khijmatgar; S Panda; A Ravidà; G Tommasato; A Sculean; P Pesce Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 3.606
Authors: Nebu George Thomas; George P Sanil; Gopimohan Rajmohan; Jayachandran V Prabhakaran; Amulya K Panda Journal: J Indian Soc Periodontol Date: 2011-07
Authors: Momen A Atieh; Nabeel Hm Alsabeeha; Alan Gt Payne; Sara Ali; Clovis M Jr Faggion; Marco Esposito Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-04-26