Hyeong-Jin Baek1, Il-Hyung Kim1,2, Pil-Young Yun1, Young-Kyun Kim3,4. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 82 Gumi-ro 173beon-gil, Bundang-gu, 13620, Seongnam, Korea. 2. Office of Human Resources Development, Armed Forces Capital Hospital, Armed Forces Medical Command, Seongnam, Korea. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 82 Gumi-ro 173beon-gil, Bundang-gu, 13620, Seongnam, Korea. kyk0505@daum.net. 4. School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. kyk0505@daum.net.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We previously reported similar efficacies of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) on single extraction socket with two different E. coli derived recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) delivery systems (Cowell BMP, Cowell medi Co, Busan, Korea; β-tricalcium phosphate and hydroxyapatite particle & O-BMP, Osstem Implant Co, Busan, Korea; absorbable collagen sponge). After the trial, we completed implant therapy and observed over an average of 3 years. This follow-up study was performed retrospectively to compare result of implant treatment at the preserved alveolar ridge site. METHODS: Patients who underwent extraction of single tooth and received ARP with one of two rhBMP-2 delivery systems from October 2015 to October 2016 were enrolled. Twenty-eight patients (Group 1: Cowell BMP 14; Group 2: O-BMP 14) who underwent implant therapy and prosthetic treatment were included in study. Stability and marginal bone loss (MBL) of each implant were collected from medical charts and radiographs, and analyzed. The survival and success rates of implants were calculated. RESULTS: The primary implant stability represented by implant stability quotient (ISQ) for Groups 1 and 2 was 69.71 and 72.86, respectively. The secondary implant stability for Groups 1 and 2 was 78.86 and 81.64, respectively. Primary and secondary stabilities were not statistically different (P = 0.316 and 0.185, respectively). MBL at the latest follow-up was 0.014 mm in Group 1 over 33.76 ± 14.31 months and 0.021 mm in Group 2 over 40.20 ± 9.64 months, with no significant difference (P = 0.670). In addition, the success rate of implants was 100% (14/14) in Group 1 and 92.9% (13/14) in Group 2, with survival rate of 100% (14/14) in Group 1 and 92.9% (13/14) in Group 2. CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed good prognosis in both groups as a result of implant therapy after ARP with each of two rhBMP-2 carriers.
BACKGROUND: We previously reported similar efficacies of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) on single extraction socket with two different E. coli derived recombinant humanbone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) delivery systems (Cowell BMP, Cowell medi Co, Busan, Korea; β-tricalcium phosphate and hydroxyapatite particle & O-BMP, Osstem Implant Co, Busan, Korea; absorbable collagen sponge). After the trial, we completed implant therapy and observed over an average of 3 years. This follow-up study was performed retrospectively to compare result of implant treatment at the preserved alveolar ridge site. METHODS:Patients who underwent extraction of single tooth and received ARP with one of two rhBMP-2 delivery systems from October 2015 to October 2016 were enrolled. Twenty-eight patients (Group 1: Cowell BMP 14; Group 2: O-BMP 14) who underwent implant therapy and prosthetic treatment were included in study. Stability and marginal bone loss (MBL) of each implant were collected from medical charts and radiographs, and analyzed. The survival and success rates of implants were calculated. RESULTS: The primary implant stability represented by implant stability quotient (ISQ) for Groups 1 and 2 was 69.71 and 72.86, respectively. The secondary implant stability for Groups 1 and 2 was 78.86 and 81.64, respectively. Primary and secondary stabilities were not statistically different (P = 0.316 and 0.185, respectively). MBL at the latest follow-up was 0.014 mm in Group 1 over 33.76 ± 14.31 months and 0.021 mm in Group 2 over 40.20 ± 9.64 months, with no significant difference (P = 0.670). In addition, the success rate of implants was 100% (14/14) in Group 1 and 92.9% (13/14) in Group 2, with survival rate of 100% (14/14) in Group 1 and 92.9% (13/14) in Group 2. CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed good prognosis in both groups as a result of implant therapy after ARP with each of two rhBMP-2 carriers.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alveolar bone loss; Alveolar process; Bone substitutes; Dental implants; Survival rate; rhBMP-2 protein
Authors: P J Boyne; R E Marx; M Nevins; G Triplett; E Lazaro; L C Lilly; M Alder; P Nummikoski Journal: Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent Date: 1997-02 Impact factor: 1.840
Authors: Daniel W K Kao; Atsushi Kubota; Myron Nevins; Joseph P Fiorellini Journal: Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 1.840