AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate whether the use of a xenograft is not inferior to the use of xenograft and autogenous bone chips in treating dehiscences at implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After implant placement, leaving a dehiscence, control sites were treated using a composite graft (autogenous bone chips and xenograft) and at the test sites 100% xenograft was used. Both sites were covered with a resorbable collagen membrane. Dehiscences were measured clinically at implant placement and at re-entry. CBCT was taken immediately after implant placement and after 4 months. RESULTS: In total, 28 GBR procedures were performed in 14 patients. On average, the change in vertical defect height was 2.07 mm (46.7%-test group) and 2.28 mm (50.9%-control group) (p > .05). The horizontal defect width at the implant shoulder change on average 1.85 mm (40.5%-test group) and 1.75 mm (40.9%-control group) (p > .05). On average, a loss in augmentation thickness of 0.45 mm (68.9%-test group) and 0.64 mm (55.5% control group) between implant placement and augmentation and abutment surgery was obtained at the implant shoulder. CONCLUSION: Both treatment modalities seem to work to a certain extent. At implant shoulder level, the augmentation thickness seems to be disappeared after the healing phase. (NCT03946020).
AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate whether the use of a xenograft is not inferior to the use of xenograft and autogenous bone chips in treating dehiscences at implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After implant placement, leaving a dehiscence, control sites were treated using a composite graft (autogenous bone chips and xenograft) and at the test sites 100% xenograft was used. Both sites were covered with a resorbable collagen membrane. Dehiscences were measured clinically at implant placement and at re-entry. CBCT was taken immediately after implant placement and after 4 months. RESULTS: In total, 28 GBR procedures were performed in 14 patients. On average, the change in vertical defect height was 2.07 mm (46.7%-test group) and 2.28 mm (50.9%-control group) (p > .05). The horizontal defect width at the implant shoulder change on average 1.85 mm (40.5%-test group) and 1.75 mm (40.9%-control group) (p > .05). On average, a loss in augmentation thickness of 0.45 mm (68.9%-test group) and 0.64 mm (55.5% control group) between implant placement and augmentation and abutment surgery was obtained at the implant shoulder. CONCLUSION: Both treatment modalities seem to work to a certain extent. At implant shoulder level, the augmentation thickness seems to be disappeared after the healing phase. (NCT03946020).
Authors: Carlo Maiorana; Mattia Manfredini; Mario Beretta; Fabrizio Signorino; Andrea Bovio; Pier Paolo Poli Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 3.623
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
Authors: Ilya L Tsiklin; Evgeniy I Pugachev; Alexandr V Kolsanov; Elena V Timchenko; Violetta V Boltovskaya; Pavel E Timchenko; Larisa T Volova Journal: Polymers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-26 Impact factor: 4.329