Premium
Histologic Comparison of Healing Following Tooth Extraction With Ridge Preservation Using Two Different Xenograft Protocols
Author(s) -
Cook Deana Clare,
Mealey Brian L.
Publication year - 2013
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.2012.120219
Subject(s) - core biopsy , dentistry , medicine , connective tissue , biomedical engineering , pathology , cancer , breast cancer
Background: The objectives of this study are to compare differences in histologic and clinical healing following tooth extraction and ridge preservation using two different xenograft treatment protocols. Methods: Forty‐four patients with a non‐molar tooth that required extraction and planned implant placement were randomly allocated into two ridge preservation protocol groups. Protocol 1 used a xenograft material consisting of 90% anorganic bovine bone in combination with 10% porcine collagen fibers combined with a resorbable bilayer membrane composed of non‐cross‐linked porcine types I and III collagen. Protocol 2 used a xenograft sponge composed of 70% cross‐linked type I bovine collagen coated with a layer of non‐sintered hydroxyapatite mineral on its surface combined with a resorbable membrane composed of type I porcine collagen cross‐linked by natural ribose glycation. Following 21 weeks of healing, clinical measurements were repeated, and a core biopsy was obtained and prepared for histologic evaluation of percentages of vital bone, residual graft, and connective tissue/other (CT/other). Results: Similar percentages of CT/other were detected between protocols, with no significant difference between groups ( P = 0.763). A significantly greater percentage of vital bone was detected in specimens in protocol 2 ( P <0.001). Protocol 1 presented with a mean of 32.83% ± 14.72% vital bone, 13.44% ± 11.57% residual graft material, and 53.73% ± 6.76% CT/other. Protocol 2 presented with a mean of 47.03% ± 9.09% vital bone, no detectable residual graft material, and 52.97% ± 9.09% CT/other. Clinically, no significant differences in dimensional changes were evident between ridge preservation protocols. Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate clinical and histologic differences seen when using these two xenograft protocols for ridge preservation.