English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Purpose: To evaluate and compare histomorphometrically the bone response to two xenografts, 15 one bovine and the other porcine, grafted in adjacent extraction sockets in a human. Materials and methods: In this case report, two adjacent maxillary premolars were extracted, and the sockets were filled with two different xenogeneic bone substitutes (first premolar with bovine bone, and second premolar with porcine bone) to counteract post-extraction volume loss. Following 6 months bone core specimens were harvested during the placement of implants at the regenerated sites. 20 Results: Histomorphometrically, for the bovine xenograft the percentage of newly formed bone (osteoid) was 26.85%, the percentage of the residual graft material was 17.2% and the percentage of connective tissue 48.73%, while for the porcine xenograft, newly formed bone (osteoid) represented 32.19%, residual graft material was 6.57% and non-mineralized connective tissue was 52.99%. Conclusions: Histological results indicated that both biomaterials assessed in this study as 25 grafts for socket preservation technique are biocompatible and osteoconductive. Bovine bone derived demonstrated to be less resorbable than porcine bone derived. Both xenogenic biomaterials did not interfere with the normal bone reparative processes.

Histologic evaluation of bone healing of adjacent alveolar sockets grafted with bovine- and porcine-derived bone: a comparative case report in humans