Literature DB >> 30592368

Prospective randomized controlled clinical trial to compare hard tissue changes following socket preservation using alloplasts, xenografts vs no grafting: Clinical and histological findings.

Eli E Machtei1,2, Yaniv Mayer1, Jacob Horwitz1,2, Hadar Zigdon-Giladi1,2,3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare dimensional changes and bone quality of two different grafting materials used for socket preservation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three patients requiring extraction were recruited and randomly assigned to receive: biphasic calcium sulfate/ hydroxyapatite (BCS/HA); bovine derived xenograft (BDX) or no grafting (Control). Ridge width (at -3 and -6 mm) and vertical distance from a stent were measured at the time of extraction/grafting. Measurements were repeated at reentry and core biopsies were harvested.
RESULTS: Baseline vertical distance for the BDX, C and BCS/HA groups were 7.45 ± 3.1, 7.69 ± 4.2, and 6.75 ± 3.5 mm, respectively (P = .830). Post-op, C group had greater vertical loss (1.71 ± 0.4 mm) compared to BCS/HA (0.65 ± 0.5) and BDX (0.25 ± 0.2 mm), P = .059. Mean baseline width at -3 mm was 8.69 ± 1.1 mm, 8.31 ± 1.4 mm, and 9.0 ± 1.1 mm, respectively (P = .509). Post-op, this width was reduced by 2.96 ± 0.3 mm (C), 1.56 ± 0.4 mm (BDX), and 0.5 ± 0.4 mm (BCS/HA), P = .001. Mean ridge width at -6 mm for the C (6.5 ± 1.7 mm) was significantly smaller than BCS/HA (7.95 ± 2.8 mm) and BDX (8.85 ± 1.9 mm), P = .043. Histologically, the BDX group had greater residual scaffold material and less vital bone compared to the BCS/HA group. Pain scores were relatively low for all groups.
CONCLUSIONS: BCS/HA may be used for socket preservation with similar or better results compared to BDX. The significance of greater residual scaffold found in the BDX group is yet to be determined.
© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  alloplasts; bone grafts; extraction; natural healing; regeneration; socket preservation; xenografts

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30592368     DOI: 10.1111/cid.12707

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res        ISSN: 1523-0899            Impact factor:   3.932


  10 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

Review 2.  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

3.  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 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 rhBMP-2 in Combination with Different Biomaterials for Regeneration in Rat Calvaria Critical-Size Defects.

Authors:  Francisca Uribe; Bélgica Vásquez; Juan Pablo Alister; Sergio Olate
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2022-04-25       Impact factor: 3.246

Review 6.  The need for socket preservation: a systematic review.

Authors:  Adel Alenazi; Abdulrahman Abdullah Alotaibi; Yazaid Aljaeidi; Nasser Raqe Alqhtani
Journal:  J Med Life       Date:  2022-03

7.  Histological and dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge following tooth extraction when using collagen matrix and collagen-embedded xenogenic bone substitute: A randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Eran Gabay; Anat Katorza; Hdar Zigdon-Giladi; Jacob Horwitz; Eli E Machtei
Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res       Date:  2022-03-17       Impact factor: 4.259

8.  Ridge preservation of a novel extraction socket applying Bio-Oss® collagen: An experimental study in dogs.

Authors:  Qihang Fan; Hao Zeng; Wei Fan; Tao Wu; Jing Sun; Qi Yan; Bin Shi
Journal:  J Dent Sci       Date:  2021-04-16       Impact factor: 2.080

9.  Early crestal bone loss: Is it really loss?

Authors:  Algirdas Puisys; Viktorija Auzbikaviciute; Agne Minkauskaite; Renata Simkunaite-Rizgeliene; Dainius Razukevicius; Rokas Linkevicius; Tomas Linkevicius
Journal:  Clin Case Rep       Date:  2019-08-27

10.  Bone Remineralization around Dental Implants following Conservative Treatment after Peri-Implantitis.

Authors:  Algirdas Puisys; Viktorija Auzbikaviciute; Renata Simkunaite-Rizgeliene; Dainius Razukevicius; Rokas Linkevicius; Tomas Linkevicius
Journal:  Case Rep Dent       Date:  2019-09-05
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.