Daniel S Thoma1, Michael Payer2, Norbert Jakse2, Stefan P Bienz1, Jürg Hüsler1, Patrick R Schmidlin3, Ui-Won Jung4, Christoph H F Hämmerle1, Ronald E Jung1. 1. Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 2. Department of Oral Surgery and Radiology, School of Dentistry, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria. 3. Clinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To test whether or not the use of a xenogeneic block loaded with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) results in different bone quantity and quality compared to an autogenous bone block. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Twenty-four patients with insufficient bone volume for implant placement were randomly assigned to two treatment modalities: a xenogeneic bone block loaded with rhBMP-2 (test) and an autogenous bone block (control). The horizontal ridge width was evaluated prior to augmentation, after augmentation and at 4 months. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed at suture removal and at 4 months. Biopsies were obtained at 4 months and histologically evaluated. Intergroup comparisons were tested by a two-sided Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, intra-group comparisons were performed with Wilcoxon-signed rank test, and all categorical variables were tested with Chi-squared tests. RESULTS: One autogenous bone block failed. This patient was replaced, and in all subsequently treated 24 patients, implant placement was possible 4 months later. The median ridge width increased from 4.0 mm (Q1 = 2.0; Q3 = 4.0) (test) and 2.0 mm (Q1 = 2.0; Q3 = 3.0) (control) to 7.0 mm (Q1 = 6.0; Q3 = 8.0) (test) and 7.0 mm (Q1 = 6.0; Q3 = 8.0) (control) at 4 months (intergroup p > .05). A higher morbidity was reported at the augmented site in the control group during surgery. Sensitivity was more favourable in the test than that in the control group at 4 months. The biopsies revealed more mineralized tissue in the control group (p < .0043). CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment modalities were successful in regenerating bone to place dental implants. PROMs did not reveal any significant differences between the groups except for pain during surgery at the recipient site (in favour of the test group). Histologically, a higher amount of mineralized tissue was observed for the control group at 4 months.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To test whether or not the use of a xenogeneic block loaded with recombinant humanbone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) results in different bone quantity and quality compared to an autogenous bone block. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients with insufficient bone volume for implant placement were randomly assigned to two treatment modalities: a xenogeneic bone block loaded with rhBMP-2 (test) and an autogenous bone block (control). The horizontal ridge width was evaluated prior to augmentation, after augmentation and at 4 months. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed at suture removal and at 4 months. Biopsies were obtained at 4 months and histologically evaluated. Intergroup comparisons were tested by a two-sided Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, intra-group comparisons were performed with Wilcoxon-signed rank test, and all categorical variables were tested with Chi-squared tests. RESULTS: One autogenous bone block failed. This patient was replaced, and in all subsequently treated 24 patients, implant placement was possible 4 months later. The median ridge width increased from 4.0 mm (Q1 = 2.0; Q3 = 4.0) (test) and 2.0 mm (Q1 = 2.0; Q3 = 3.0) (control) to 7.0 mm (Q1 = 6.0; Q3 = 8.0) (test) and 7.0 mm (Q1 = 6.0; Q3 = 8.0) (control) at 4 months (intergroup p > .05). A higher morbidity was reported at the augmented site in the control group during surgery. Sensitivity was more favourable in the test than that in the control group at 4 months. The biopsies revealed more mineralized tissue in the control group (p < .0043). CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment modalities were successful in regenerating bone to place dental implants. PROMs did not reveal any significant differences between the groups except for pain during surgery at the recipient site (in favour of the test group). Histologically, a higher amount of mineralized tissue was observed for the control group at 4 months.
Authors: Stefan P Bienz; Michael Payer; Jenni Hjerppe; Jürg Hüsler; Norbert Jakse; Patrick R Schmidlin; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Ronald E Jung; Daniel S Thoma Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 5.021
Authors: Luca Fiorillo; Gabriele Cervino; Pablo Galindo-Moreno; Alan Scott Herford; Gianrico Spagnuolo; Marco Cicciù Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 3.411