Literature DB >> 31886909

Deproteinized bovine bone mineral is non-inferior to deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen in maintaining the soft tissue contour post-extraction: A randomized trial.

Vítor M Sapata1, Alexandre H Llanos1, João B Cesar Neto1, Ronald E Jung2, Daniel S Thoma2, Christoph H F Hämmerle2, Cláudio M Pannuti1, Giuseppe A Romito1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To test the non-inferiority of demineralized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) compared to demineralized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen (DBBM-C) for the maintenance of the soft tissue contour after tooth extraction in the esthetic zone.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-five patients randomly received ridge preservation at a single site in the anterior maxilla with DBBM or DBBM-C. Both, DBBM and DBBM-C, were covered with a collagen matrix. Profilometric analyses were performed at baseline (BL), immediately after treatment (PO), and at 4 months (FU; day of implant placement). The main outcome was the horizontal mean change (HC) at the buccal aspect. The measurements also included changes of the estimated soft tissue thickness (eTT) at 1, 3, and 5 mm below the buccal gingival margin. Descriptive analysis was performed, and differences between groups were analyzed using independent samples t test. The non-inferiority test was performed for HC.
RESULTS: At 4 months, the horizontal mean change (HC) was -1.43 mm (±0.53 mm) (DBBM-C) and -1.32 mm (±0.53 mm) (DBBM). Change of the estimated soft tissue thickness (eTT) between baseline (BL) and four months of follow-up (FU) at 1, 3, and 5 mm amounted to -4.58 mm (±2.02 mm), -2.40 mm (±0.97 mm), and -1.37 mm (±0.78 mm) for DBBM-C and to -4.12 mm (±1.80 mm), -2.09 mm (±0.91 mm), and -1.23 mm (±0.72 mm) for DBBM. The differences between the groups were not statistically significantly for any of the outcome measures (p > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: DBBM is non-inferior to DBBM-C for the maintenance of the soft tissue contour 4 months after tooth extraction.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bone substitutes; profilometric analysis; ridge preservation; soft tissue

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31886909     DOI: 10.1111/clr.13570

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res        ISSN: 0905-7161            Impact factor:   5.977


  5 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Clinical application of concentrate growth factors combined with bone substitute in Alveolar ridge preservation of anterior teeth.

Authors:  Dilinuer Keranmu; Nijiati Nuermuhanmode; Ailimaierdan Ainiwaer; Dilidaer Taxifulati; Wang Shan; Wang Ling
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2022-03-03       Impact factor: 2.757

Review 3.  Role of Biomaterials Used for Periodontal Tissue Regeneration-A Concise Evidence-Based Review.

Authors:  Jothi Varghese; Anjale Rajagopal; Shashikiran Shanmugasundaram
Journal:  Polymers (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 4.967

4.  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

5.  Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single-blind controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Neil D MacBeth; Nikolaos Donos; Nikos Mardas
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2022-06-22       Impact factor: 5.021

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.