Premium
Combined use of xenogeneic bone substitute material covered with a native bilayer collagen membrane for alveolar ridge preservation: A randomized controlled clinical trial
Author(s) -
Jung Ronald E.,
Sapata Vitor M.,
Hämmerle Christoph H. F.,
Wu Hui,
Hu Xiulian,
Lin Ye
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.13149
Subject(s) - buccal administration , dentistry , dental alveolus , alveolar ridge , extraction (chemistry) , cone beam computed tomography , ridge , medicine , bone healing , nuclear medicine , chemistry , surgery , computed tomography , chromatography , biology , implant , paleontology
Aim The aim of this split‐mouth randomized controlled study was to evaluate radiographic dimensional changes after tooth extraction in posterior sites treated with a ridge preservation technique or left for spontaneous healing. Materials and Methods In a total of 18 patients, tooth extraction in posterior sites of the upper and lower jaw was performed in a split‐mouth design. The post‐extraction sockets were randomly assigned to the following two treatment modalities: deproteinized bovine bone mineral ( DBBM ) with 10% collagen ( DBBM ‐C) covered with a native bilayer collagen membrane ( NBCM ) (test group) and spontaneous healing (control group). Cone beam computed tomography ( CBCT ) scans were performed after extractions, 3 and 6 months later. The following parameters were measured: the height of the buccal bone plate ( BH ), height of the palatal bone plate ( PH ), horizontal width of the extraction socket at 1 mm, 3 mm, and 5 mm ( HW ‐1, HW ‐3, HW ‐5), and the horizontal width (thickness) of the buccal bone plate at 1 mm, 3 mm, and 5 mm ( BHP ‐1, BHP ‐3, BHP ‐5). Statistical analysis was performed applying a nonparametric Wilcoxon signed‐rank test. Results The CBCT analysis showed a bone loss compared to baseline in test and control group. The measurements which have reached statistically significant differences at 6 months were BH (test: −2.31% vs control: −13.11%), PH (test: −2.07% vs control: −15.32%), HW ‐1 (test: −17.14% vs control: −32.47%), and HW ‐3 (test: −11.65% vs control: −28.47%). Conclusions The posterior ridge preservation technique using DBBM ‐C covered with a NBCM is a valid approach reducing the amount of the radiographic loss in alveolar ridge dimensions.