Premium
Ridge Preservation With Acellular Dermal Matrix and Anorganic Bone Matrix Cell‐Binding Peptide P‐15 After Tooth Extraction in Humans
Author(s) -
Fernandes Patricia Garani,
Novaes Arthur B.,
de Queiroz Adriana Correa,
de Souza Sergio Luis Scombatti,
Taba Mario,
Palioto Daniela Bazan,
de Moraes Grisi Marcio Fernando
Publication year - 2011
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.2010.100241
Subject(s) - ridge , chemistry , matrix (chemical analysis) , peptide , extraction (chemistry) , dentistry , medicine , chromatography , biochemistry , biology , paleontology
Background: Preventing ridge collapse with the extraction of maxillary anterior teeth is vital to an esthetic restorative result. Several regenerative techniques are available and are used for socket preservation. The aim of this study is to analyze by clinical parameters the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and anorganic bovine bone matrix (ABM) with synthetic cell‐binding peptide P‐15 to preserve alveolar bone after tooth extraction. Methods: Eighteen patients in need of extraction of maxillary anterior teeth were selected and randomly assigned to the test group (ADM plus ABM/P‐15) or the control group (ADM only). Clinical measurements were recorded initially and at 6 months after ridge‐preservation procedures. Results: In the clinical measurements (external vertical palatal measurement [EVPM], external vertical buccal measurement [EVBM], and alveolar horizontal measurement [AHM]) the statistical analysis showed no difference between test and control groups initially and at 6 months. The intragroup analysis, after 6 months, showed a statistically significant reduction in the measurements for both groups. In the comparison between the two groups, the differences in the test group were as follows: EVPM = 0.83 ± 1.53 mm; EVBM = 1.20 ± 2.02 mm; and AHM = 2.53 ± 1.81 mm. The differences in the control group were as follows: EVPM = 0.87 ± 1.13 mm; EVBM = 1.50 ± 1.15 mm; and AHM = 3.40 ± 1.39 mm. The differences in EVPM and EVBM were not statistically significant; however, in horizontal measurement (AHM), there was a statistically significant difference ( P <0.05). Conclusion: The results of this study show that ADM used as membrane associated with ABM/P‐15 can be used to reduce buccal‐palatal dimensions compared to ADM alone for preservation of the alveolar ridge after extraction of anterior maxillary teeth.