Literature DB >> 29889920

Dimensional Evaluation of Different Ridge Preservation Techniques with a Bovine Xenograft: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Kai R Fischer, Sven Mühlemann, Ronald E Jung, Anton Friedmann, Stefan Fickl.   

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to determine the quantitative changes after different ridge preservation techniques (primary aim) and to assess the possibility of placing a dental implant, the bone quality, and the need for bone augmentation (secondary aim). A total of 35 patients who required extraction of at least one tooth (incisor, canine, or premolar) provided 35 single-gap extraction sites. After minimally invasive tooth removal, the sockets were randomly scheduled for one of four treatment modalities: placement of a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM; Endobon, Biomet 3i) covered with a soft tissue punch from the palate (T1); placement of DBBM alone (T2); placement of DBBM covered with a resorbable collagen membrane (OsseoGuard, Biomet 3i) (T3); or no additional treatment (T4). Silicone impressions were taken before and 6 months after extraction for quantitative-volumetric evaluation (primary outcome). The possibility of placing an implant, bone quality, and need for further bone augmentation were also noted (secondary outcomes). During the study period, no adverse events were observed. No statistically significant difference was found between the four treatments regarding the primary and secondary outcome parameters (P > .05). However, T4 showed double the buccal contour change, with the highest variance compared to the other three groups (T1 -0.874 ± 0.713; T2 -0.968 ± 0.344; T3 -1.26 ± 0.942; T4 -2.15 ± 1.349). Although no statistically significant difference was found between the four treatment modalities, placement of DBBM resulted in only half the contour change (< 1 mm) compared to control sites (> 2 mm). Ridge preservation with a DBBM with or without soft tissue punch should be considered in esthetically demanding cases and delayed or late implant placement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29889920     DOI: 10.11607/prd.3636

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent        ISSN: 0198-7569            Impact factor:   1.840


  5 in total

Review 1.  A comparison between anorganic bone and collagen-preserving bone xenografts for alveolar ridge preservation: systematic review and future perspectives.

Authors:  Danilo Alessio Di Stefano; Francesco Orlando; Marco Ottobelli; Davide Fiori; Umberto Garagiola
Journal:  Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2022-07-12

2.  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

Review 3.  Soft tissue dimensional changes after alveolar ridge preservation using different sealing materials: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Luigi Canullo; Paolo Pesce; Donato Antonacci; Andrea Ravidà; Matthew Galli; Shahnawaz Khijmatgar; Grazia Tommasato; Anton Sculean; Massimo Del Fabbro
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-10-20       Impact factor: 3.606

Review 4.  Innovative Concepts and Recent Breakthrough for Engineered Graft and Constructs for Bone Regeneration: A Literature Systematic Review.

Authors:  Francesco Inchingolo; Denisa Hazballa; Alessio Danilo Inchingolo; Giuseppina Malcangi; Grazia Marinelli; Antonio Mancini; Maria Elena Maggiore; Ioana Roxana Bordea; Antonio Scarano; Marco Farronato; Gianluca Martino Tartaglia; Felice Lorusso; Angelo Michele Inchingolo; Gianna Dipalma
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 3.623

5.  Comparison of Injectable Biphasic Calcium Phosphate and a Bovine Xenograft in Socket Preservation: Qualitative and Quantitative Histologic Study in Humans.

Authors:  Marija Čandrlić; Matej Tomas; Matej Karl; Lucija Malešić; Aleksandar Včev; Željka Perić Kačarević; Marko Matijević
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-02-25       Impact factor: 5.923

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.