Crespi Roberto1,2, Toti Paolo3,4, Crespi Giovanni4, Covani Ugo3,4, Brevi Bruno5, Menchini-Fabris Giovanni-Battista3,4. 1. School of Dentistry, Saint Camillus International University of Health and Medical Sciences, Via di Sant'Alessandro, 8, 00131, Rome, Italy. editorial.activities@istitutostomatologicotoscano.it. 2. Department of Stomatology, Tuscan Stomatological Institute, c/o Versilia General Hospital, via Aurelia 335, 55049, |Lido di Camaiore, Italy. editorial.activities@istitutostomatologicotoscano.it. 3. School of Dentistry, Saint Camillus International University of Health and Medical Sciences, Via di Sant'Alessandro, 8, 00131, Rome, Italy. 4. Department of Stomatology, Tuscan Stomatological Institute, c/o Versilia General Hospital, via Aurelia 335, 55049, |Lido di Camaiore, Italy. 5. Department of Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Hospital and University of Pisa, via Paradisa 2, Pisa, 56124, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate and compare the long-term clinical and radiological outcomes of post-extraction sockets after ridge preservation either with porcine xenograft or collagen alone. Patients underwent single-tooth extraction in the posterior mandible. Fresh extraction sockets were filled with pre-hydrated cortico-cancellous porcine bone or collagen sponge. Two or 3 months later, a ridge expansion technique with immediate implant positioning placement was performed. Primary (alveolar width changes) and secondary outcomes (adverse events and long-term maintenance of buccal plate covering the implant) were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-four women and 20 men were selected: 30 implants (group A) placed into healed post-extraction sockets grafted with porcine bone and 24 (group B) into sockets filled with a collagen sponge. There was a significant loss in width in both groups from the first and second surgery (ranging between 2.7 mm and 4.5 mm). The ridge splitting with bone expansion resulted in significant long-term increases in width for both procedures and implant sites. Non-significant differences in alveolar width were registered between the groups at 10-year follow-up even if the analysis of the implant buccal bone coverage suggested that group A had significantly worst results. CONCLUSIONS: Porcine bone group had significantly better short-term outcomes with lower long-term maintenance of the buccal plate.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate and compare the long-term clinical and radiological outcomes of post-extraction sockets after ridge preservation either with porcine xenograft or collagen alone. Patients underwent single-tooth extraction in the posterior mandible. Fresh extraction sockets were filled with pre-hydrated cortico-cancellous porcine bone or collagen sponge. Two or 3 months later, a ridge expansion technique with immediate implant positioning placement was performed. Primary (alveolar width changes) and secondary outcomes (adverse events and long-term maintenance of buccal plate covering the implant) were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-four women and 20 men were selected: 30 implants (group A) placed into healed post-extraction sockets grafted with porcine bone and 24 (group B) into sockets filled with a collagen sponge. There was a significant loss in width in both groups from the first and second surgery (ranging between 2.7 mm and 4.5 mm). The ridge splitting with bone expansion resulted in significant long-term increases in width for both procedures and implant sites. Non-significant differences in alveolar width were registered between the groups at 10-year follow-up even if the analysis of the implant buccal bone coverage suggested that group A had significantly worst results. CONCLUSIONS: Porcine bone group had significantly better short-term outcomes with lower long-term maintenance of the buccal plate.
Authors: Gerald V Cammack; Myron Nevins; Donald S Clem; John P Hatch; James T Mellonig Journal: Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 1.840
Authors: M B Hürzeler; R J Kohal; J Naghshbandi; L F Mota; J Conradt; D Hutmacher; R G Caffesse Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 2.789
Authors: W Becker; C Dahlin; B E Becker; U Lekholm; D van Steenberghe; K Higuchi; C Kultje Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 1994 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.804