Premium
Histological Comparison of Healing Extraction Sockets Implanted With Bioactive Glass or Demineralized Freeze‐Dried Bone Allograft: A Pilot Study
Author(s) -
Froum Stuart,
Cho SangChoon,
Rosenberg Edwin,
Rohrer Michael,
Tarnow Dennis
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
journal of periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.036
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1943-3670
pISSN - 0022-3492
DOI - 10.1902/jop.2002.73.1.94
Subject(s) - dentistry , medicine , bioactive glass , bone healing , implant , resorption , bone formation , connective tissue , surgery , endocrinology , pathology
Background: Various materials have been used immediately following tooth extraction to fill and/or cover the socket in an attempt to limit or prevent ridge resorption. The purpose of the present pilot study was to establish a reliable model to investigate the effect of various bone graft and bone replacement materials on extraction socket healing. This study also compared healing extraction sockets 6 to 8 months postimplantation of a bioactive glass (BG) or demineralized freeze‐dried bone allograft (DFDBA) to an unfilled socket control (C). Methods: Following tooth extraction, a total of 30 sockets in 19 patients were randomly divided into 3 treatment groups: 10 sockets received BG, 10 sockets DFDBA, and 10 sockets served as unfilled controls. Primary coverage was achieved by flap advancement over each socket. Six to 8 months postextraction at time of implant placement, histological cores of the treatment sites were obtained. These cores were processed, undecalcified sections prepared and stained with Stevenel blue/van Gieson's picric fuchsin, and histomorphometrically analyzed. Vital bone, connective tissue and marrow, and residual graft particles were reported as a percentage of the total core. Results: A model system was described in humans and used to evaluate the healing response in the 3 treatment groups. Results concluded that mean vital bone present was 59.5% for BG‐, 34.7% for DFDBA‐, and 32.4% for C‐treated sites. These differences were not statistically significant. However, the residual implant material was significantly higher in DFDBA‐treated (13.5%) versus BG‐treated sockets (5.5%). Conclusions: Although the differences in percent vital bone were not statistically significant among the 3 treatment groups in this pilot study, BG material was observed to act as an osteoconductive material which had a positive effect on socket healing at 6 to 8 months postextraction. Further research following implant placement in treated and control sockets is warranted to determine if bone implant contact is improved in BG‐filled versus unfilled sockets. J Periodontol 2002;73:94‐102 .