Literature DB >> 22150876

Clinical evaluation of a ridge augmentation procedure for the severely resorbed alveolar socket: multicenter randomized controlled trial, preliminary results.

Angelo Sisti1, Luigi Canullo, Maria Pia Mottola, Ugo Covani, Antonio Barone, Daniele Botticelli.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To radiographically analyze extraction sites left untreated or treated using a socket preservation technique.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 patients scheduled for single extraction in the maxilla from second to second premolar were enrolled in this study. All sites showed a bone defect >5 mm at the buccal wall and no soft tissue recession. At baseline (T0), tooth extraction was performed; subsequently, sites were randomly allocated to the control (CG: left to heal without grafting) or test group (TG: grafted using hydroxyapatite). Two months later (T1), implants were inserted and eventual GBR procedure was performed. Three months later, the definitive crown was placed. Follow up was 24 months (T2). A cone-beam computed tomographic examination (CT) was performed at each time point. At each radiographic analysis, horizontal and vertical widths of the sockets were measured. Comparisons between CG and TG were performed by a Wilcoxon non-parametric test.
RESULTS: At the end of the study, no patient dropped out and all implants inserted (10 in each group) resulted integrated. GBR procedures were performed at T1 only in the CG. In the CG, the mean value of the horizontal width in the coronal CT slices was 0.98 mm (± 0.37), 7.70 mm (± 0.92), 7.45 mm (± 0.69) at T0, T1 (after bone regeneration) and T2, respectively. In the TG, the mean value of the horizontal width in the coronal CT slices was 0.96 mm (± 0.41), 8.97 mm (± 1.91), 9.48 mm (± 1.56); at T2, it was 9.52 mm (± 1.87) at T0 (pre- and post-socket preservation) T1 and T2, respectively. At each follow up, the mean horizontal bone width in TG was statistically significantly greater than in the control group (P < 0.05). At T0, mean value of the vertical bone defect length (BDL) was 6.93 mm for TG, 6.5 mm for CG. At T1 and T2, mean BDL value was 0 for both groups. Statistically significant difference was not found between TC and CG at any time point (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: This randomized controlled trial suggested that in sites with buccal bone defects >5 mm, the application of HA can minimize alveolar crest resorption following tooth extraction. Furthermore, compared with traditional regenerative procedure carried out following socket healing, this preservation technique seems to result in better horizontal regeneration of the buccal bone wall.
© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22150876     DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02386.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res        ISSN: 0905-7161            Impact factor:   5.977


  13 in total

Review 1.  Effect of alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  G Avila-Ortiz; S Elangovan; K W O Kramer; D Blanchette; D V Dawson
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 6.116

2.  Effect of flapless ridge preservation with two different alloplastic materials in sockets with buccal dehiscence defects-volumetric and linear changes.

Authors:  Nadja Naenni; Vitor Sapata; Stefan P Bienz; Minas Leventis; Ronald E Jung; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Daniel S Thoma
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-12-26       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 3.  Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development.

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

4.  Ridge preservation in maxillary molar extraction sites with severe periodontitis: a prospective observational clinical trial.

Authors:  Yiping Wei; Tao Xu; Liping Zhao; Wenjie Hu; Kwok-Hung Chung
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-10-08       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Marginal Bone Resorption Around Dental Implants Placed in Alveolar Socket Preserved Sites: A 5 Years Follow-up Study.

Authors:  Mario Beretta; Carlo Maiorana; Mattia Manfredini; Fabrizio Signorino; Pier Paolo Poli; Raffaele Vinci
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2020-04-18

Review 6.  Dimensional and histomorphometric evaluation of biomaterials used for alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

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

7.  Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development.

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

8.  Selective laser melting of titanium alloy enables osseointegration of porous multi-rooted implants in a rabbit model.

Authors:  Wei Peng; Liangwei Xu; Jia You; Lihua Fang; Qing Zhang
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 2.819

9.  Adrenomedullin delivery in microsphere-scaffold composite for remodeling of the alveolar bone following tooth extraction: an experimental study in the rat.

Authors:  Lin Wang; Ling Zheng; Chunyan Li; Shujun Dong; Lan A; Yanmin Zhou
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 2.819

10.  Alveolar socket preservation with demineralised bovine bone mineral and a collagen matrix.

Authors:  Carlo Maiorana; Pier Paolo Poli; Matteo Deflorian; Tiziano Testori; Federico Mandelli; Heiner Nagursky; Raffaele Vinci
Journal:  J Periodontal Implant Sci       Date:  2017-08-11       Impact factor: 2.614

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.