Literature DB >> 31355447

Evaluation of healing at molar extraction sites with and without ridge preservation: A three-arm histologic analysis.

Mylinh Duong1, Brian L Mealey1, Christopher Walker1, Shaimaa Al-Harthi1, Thomas J Prihoda2, Guy Huynh-Ba1,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little evidence is available regarding the benefit of ridge preservation (RP) at molar sites. The primary objective of this three-arm cohort study was to histologically compare the healing outcome between natural healing after molar tooth extraction and two different techniques of RP using freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) and a nonresorbable dense polytetrafluoroethylene (dPTFE) membrane, or an absorbable collagen sponge as a barrier.
METHODS: Seventy-nine patients requiring extraction and delayed implant placement were placed into three groups: extraction alone (control); ridge preserved using FDBA; and either dPTFE (Test1) or collagen sponge (Test2). Bone cores were harvested from implant osteotomies at ≈3 months after extraction for histomorphometric analysis to determine the percentage of vital bone, residual graft, and connective or other tissue. Ridge dimension changes were also evaluated radiographically (cone-beam computed tomography).
RESULTS: The percentage of vital bone was significantly greater in control group compared with Test1 but was not statistically different among other groups. Test2 showed significantly less connective or other tissue than control and Test1. The percentage of residual graft was significantly lower in Test1 compared with Test2. There was no significant correlation between the percentage of vital bone or residual graft and the following parameters: healing time, patient age, gender, buccal plate thickness, or radiographic changes in ridge dimensions.
CONCLUSION: RP at molar sites using FDBA and an absorbable collagen sponge may be a sufficient and economic way to preserve the ridge dimension without interfering with the amount of new bone formation.
© 2019 American Academy of Periodontology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  alveolar bone grafting; bone resorption; membranes; molar; tooth extraction

Year:  2019        PMID: 31355447     DOI: 10.1002/JPER.19-0237

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Periodontol        ISSN: 0022-3492            Impact factor:   6.993


  5 in total

1.  Tomographic evaluation of the effect of simvastatin topical use on alveolar bone microarchitecture, pain and swelling after mandibular third molar extraction: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jiordanne Araújo Diniz; Davi da Silva Barbirato; Eduarda Helena Leandro do Nascimento; Andrea Dos Anjos Pontual; Ana Cláudia Amorim Gomes Dourado; José Rodrigues Laureano Filho
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2022-01-22       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Prevention of Bone Resorption by HA/β-TCP + Collagen Composite after Tooth Extraction: A Case Series.

Authors:  Hsi Kuei Lin; Yu Hwa Pan; Eisner Salamanca; Yu Te Lin; Wei Jen Chang
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 3.390

3.  Polyphosphate-crosslinked collagen scaffolds for hemostasis and alveolar bone regeneration after tooth extraction.

Authors:  Jun-Ting Gu; Kai Jiao; Jing Li; Jian-Fei Yan; Kai-Yan Wang; Fu Wang; Yan Liu; Franklin R Tay; Ji-Hua Chen; Li-Na Niu
Journal:  Bioact Mater       Date:  2021-12-26

Review 4.  The Use of Biocompatible Membranes in Oral Surgery: The Past, Present & Future Directions. A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Ioannis Kormas; Alessandro Pedercini; Hatem Alassy; Larry F Wolff
Journal:  Membranes (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-29

5.  Evaluation of healing at molar extraction sites with ridge preservation using a non-resorbable dense polytetrafluoroethylene membrane: A four-arm cohort prospective study.

Authors:  Arwa M Al Hugail; Brian L Mealey; Christopher Walker; Shaimaa Al Harthi; Mylinh Duong; Marcel Noujeim; David J Lasho; Thomas J Prihoda; Guy Huynh-Ba
Journal:  Clin Exp Dent Res       Date:  2021-06-06
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.