| Literature DB >> 31966978 |
Vivekanand Sabanna Kattimani1, Krishna Prasad Lingamaneni1, Girija Easwaradas Kreedapathi2, Kiran Kumar Kattappagari3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Socket grafting is vital to prevent bone resorption after tooth extraction. Several techniques to prevent resorption have been described, and various bone graft substitutes have been developed and used with varying success. We conducted this pilot study to evaluate the performance of nanohydroxyapatite (nHA) derived from chicken eggshells in socket preservation.Entities:
Keywords: Bone; Bone regeneration; Socket grafting; Tooth extraction; Wound healing
Year: 2019 PMID: 31966978 PMCID: PMC6955417 DOI: 10.5125/jkaoms.2019.45.6.332
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg ISSN: 1225-1585
Fig. 1A. Bone defect immediately after extraction with curette in place. B. Bone graft material placed till crestal level in the mandibular left first molar socket. C. Wound closure using platelet-rich fibrin membrane and figure of eight suture. D. Well healed wound after two weeks. E. Well-formed bone observed during exposure for implant bed preparation. F. Cone-beam computed tomography pre-extraction view with roots and bone defect marked in red circles. G. Bone formation (red circles) assessed before implant placement.
Fig. 2Intra-oral periapical radiographic images for assessment of bone formation and density using Digora software.
Fig. 3A. Thick tissue biotype observed after removal of the screw-retained abutment of an immediate-loaded implant following suture removal after 1 week. B. Trephined bone (3×10 mm size) harvested from the left mandibular first molar site 24 weeks after grafting (during implant bed preparation) for micro-computed tomography (CT) and histomorphometric analysis. C, D. Micro-CT sections of trephine bone showing intervening trabeculae.
Fig. 4A–C. Micro-computed tomography (CT) assessment of trephined bone using PhoenixV/tome/Xs machine image analyzing software. D. Schematic presentation of micro-CT image acquisition process for analysis using the PhoenixV/tome/Xs machine.
Fig. 5A. Microphotograph of two (10 mm and 5 mm) trephine bone specimens showing intervening trabeculae with a rim of osteoblasts (arrows). B. Osteoid and fibrous connective tissue with plump lacunae with prominent osteocytes was visible (arrows). A, B. H&E staining (×10).
Fig. 6Pattern of bone regeneration and distribution of these patterns.
Socket preservation, changes in alveolar width at different time intervals, pattern of bone regeneration, and histopathology grading 24 weeks after bone grafting
| No. | Tooth No. (FDI) of socket preservation | Alveolar width (mm) | Mean density after | Pattern of bone regeneration | Grade of bone formation based on Initial Final 1 wk 12 wk 24 wk histopathology1 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial | Final | 1 wk | 12 wk | 24 wk | ||||
| 1 | 37 | 13 | 12 | 60.60 | 40.32 | 76.34 | Trabecular | 3 |
| 2 | 36 | 14 | 13 | 63.27 | 55.50 | 88.80 | Trabecular | 3 |
| 3 | 11 | 14 | 14 | 54.34 | 34.43 | 70.46 | Ground glass | 3 |
| 4 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 50.12 | 45.10 | 65.27 | Ground glass | 4 |
| 5 | 13 | 15 | 14 | 53.24 | 40.23 | 58.89 | Ground glass | 2 |
| 6 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 50.32 | 43.12 | 65.13 | Ground glass | 4 |
| 7 | 15 | 13 | 12 | 44.45 | 34.10 | 67.73 | Trabecular | 3 |
| 8 | 23 | 15 | 14 | 54.43 | 45.20 | 73.49 | Trabecular | 2 |
| 9 | 24 | 14 | 14 | 50.32 | 40.12 | 75.21 | Trabecular | 3 |
| 10 | 33 | 13 | 13 | 45.56 | 34.34 | 58.12 | Ground glass | 3 |
| 11 | 35 | 13 | 12.5 | 56.75 | 45.65 | 69.15 | Ground glass | 2 |
| 12 | 44 | 13 | 12.5 | 45.43 | 34.43 | 72.14 | Trabecular | 3 |
| 13 | 45 | 14 | 13 | 45.21 | 32.54 | 73.16 | Trabecular | 3 |
| 14 | 36 | 14.5 | 14.5 | 50.68 | 45.00 | 69.76 | Trabecular | 3 |
| 15 | 21 | 14 | 13.5 | 54.45 | 34.80 | 68.23 | Trabecular | 3 |
| 16 | 36 | 14.5 | 14 | 50.89 | 29.01 | 75.20 | Trabecular | 3 |
| 17 | 36 | 15 | 14 | 59.43 | 36.03 | 76.08 | Trabecular | 3 |
| 18 | 36 | 14 | 14 | 66.34 | 35.04 | 79.05 | Trabecular | - |
| 19 | 38 | 15 | 14.5 | 63.12 | 60.06 | 80.03 | Trabecular | - |
| 20 | 14 | 14 | 13.5 | 64.34 | 58.09 | 76.83 | Trabecular | - |
| 21 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 44.65 | 35.07 | 69.01 | Trabecular | 3 |
| 22 | 47 | 15 | 14 | 56.87 | 43.05 | 70.01 | Trabecular | - |
| 23 | 48 | 16 | 15 | 68.54 | 46.03 | 74.01 | Trabecular | - |
(FDI: Fédération Dentaire Internationale; FDI World Dental Federation)
1Histologic analysis graded on the following 5-point scale: 1) Grade 0, no bone formation; 2) Grade 1, minimal bone formation; 3) Grade 2, moderate bone formation; 4) Grade 3, abundant bone formation; 5) Grade 4, exuberant bone formation.
Comparison of initial and final alveolar width (mm) scores by dependent t-test
| Time points | Mean | SD | Mean Diff. | SD Diff. | % of change | Paired t | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial | 14.04 | 0.86 | |||||
| Final | 13.48 | 0.80 | 0.57 | 0.43 | 4.02 | 6.2395 | 0.0001* |
(SD: standard deviation, Diff.: difference)
*P<0.05
Comparison of density scores 1 week, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks by dependent t-test
| Time points | Mean | SD | Mean Diff. | SD Diff. | % of change | Paired t | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st wk | 54.49 | 7.35 | |||||
| 12th wk | 41.19 | 8.26 | 13.31 | 7.17 | 24.42 | 8.9052 | 0.0001* |
| 1st wk | 54.49 | 7.35 | |||||
| 24th wk | 71.83 | 6.74 | –17.34 | 6.32 | –31.81 | –13.1497 | 0.0001* |
| 12th wk | 41.19 | 8.26 | |||||
| 24th wk | 71.83 | 6.74 | –30.65 | 8.29 | –74.41 | –17.7222 | 0.0001* |
(SD: standard deviation, Diff.: difference)
*P<0.05.
Fig. 7Histological grade of bone regeneration and distribution of these grades.