Premium
Randomized clinical trial comparing PEG‐based synthetic to porcine‐derived collagen membrane in the preservation of alveolar bone following tooth extraction in anterior maxilla
Author(s) -
Shahdad Shakeel,
Gamble Eugene,
Matani Jay,
Zhang Liang,
Gambôa Ana
Publication year - 2020
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.13648
Subject(s) - dental alveolus , dentistry , medicine , coronal plane , alveolar ridge , peg ratio , randomization , maxilla , cone beam computed tomography , randomized controlled trial , nuclear medicine , surgery , implant , anatomy , computed tomography , finance , economics
Objectives The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to compare alveolar ridge preservation using a bone substitute material and covered with a synthetic or porcine collagen membrane. Materials and methods Thirty‐two sockets in the aesthetic maxillary region of 30 patients were randomized into two groups. Randomization was stratified according to bone wall defect. Flapless technique was used, and sockets were grafted with bi‐phasic calcium phosphate particulate bone substitute and covered by synthetic polyethylene glycol (PEG; test group) or porcine‐derived collagen membrane (CM; control group). No primary closure was attempted. A cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan was performed immediately after the surgical procedure and repeated 22 weeks later. OnDemand3D was used to superimpose scan images and assess changes. The mean vertical and horizontal percentage bone loss were calculated and implants placed after 6 months with or without additional augmentation. Results There were no baseline differences between groups or dropouts. The mean percentage loss at the labial plate and at the coronal part of the sockets was statistically significantly lower in the test group compared with controls (−2.86% [ SD = 13.48] versus 7.42% [ SD = 11.95]; 13.45% [ SD = 11.97] versus 28.59% [ SD = 16.97]). Implants were placed after 6 months, and there was no difference in need for further augmentation between PEG ( n = 5) or CM ( n = 4). Conclusion Sites treated with PEG membrane showed less percentage loss in horizontal and vertical measurements in this trial.