Premium
Autogenous Mineralized Dentin versus Xenograft granules in Ridge Preservation for Delayed Implantation in Post‐extraction Sites: A Randomized controlled clinical trial with an 18 months follow‐up
Author(s) -
Santos Alexandre,
Botelho João,
Machado Vanessa,
Borrecho Gonçalo,
Proença Luís,
Mendes José João,
Mascarenhas Paulo,
Alcoforado Gil
Publication year - 2021
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.13765
Subject(s) - mucositis , medicine , dentistry , implant , dentin , trephine , implant stability quotient , visual analogue scale , surgery , dental implant , radiation therapy
Objectives To test primary stability of delayed implants placed in post‐extraction ridges preserved with autogenous mineralized dentin matrix (MDM) versus xenograft granules. Clinical, histological and pain experience outcomes were further assessed. Material and Methods From March 2018 to July 2020, patients requiring ridge preservation in preparation for delayed implant placement in post‐extraction sites were included. Participants were randomly allocated to either the test (MDM) or control group (xenograft granules) prior to ridge preservation. Visual analogue scale and analgesic consumption were measured every day for a week. Six months after preservation, trephine cores were harvested for histomorphometry prior to implant placement. Implants were then placed, and implant stability was measured immediately as well as two months after placement. Marginal bone loss and presence of mucositis/peri‐implantitis were registered up to 18 months after prosthetic loading. Results Fifty‐two patients (66 implants) completed the study. MDM and xenograft groups presented similar primary (77.1 ± 6.9 versus. 77.0 versus. 5.9) and secondary (81.8 ± 5.1 versus. 80.1 ± 3.8) implant stabilities. The percentage of newly formed bone in MDM (47.3%) was significantly higher than xenograft (34.9%) ( p < .001), and the proportion of residual graft was significantly lower (12.2% in MDM and 22.1% in xenograft) ( p < .001). No significant differences were found as far as clinical, radiographic and patient‐related outcomes. Conclusions Implants placed in sites preserved with MDM had similar primary stability in comparison to xenograft granules. MDM showed a significantly higher quantity of newly formed bone and lower amount of residual graft in histomorphometry results and equal clinical and patient‐related outcomes.