Effectiveness of Xenograft and Porcine-Derived Resorbable Membrane in Augmentation of Posterior Extraction Sockets with a Severe Wall Defect. A Radiographic/Tomographic Evaluation

Effectiveness of a collagen matrix seal and xenograft in alveolar ridge preservation: an experimental study in dogs

Majority of previous studies on alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) used collagen membranes as barrier membranes, and further evidence for ARP in dehiscent extraction sockets with a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and matrix is needed. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of non-cross linked collagen membranes (membrane) and crosslinked collagen matrices (matrix) on ARP using DBBM in extraction sockets with buccal dehiscence. In six mongrel dogs, the mesial roots of three mandibular premolars (P2, P3, and P4) were extracted 1 month after dehiscence defect induction. Two experimental groups were randomly assigned: (1) DBBM with a membrane (DBBM/membrane group) and (2) DBBM with a matrix (DBBM/matrix group). Three-dimensional (3D) volumetric, microcomputed tomography (μCT), and histologic analyses were performed to assess the ridge preservation. Both groups were effective to maintain the ridge width (p > 0.05), and the DBBM/matrix group showed more favorable soft tissue regeneration and bone quality in the histological analysis (p = 0.05). Based on these results, DBBM/matrix could be better choice for ARP in cases of buccal dehiscence defects.

Clinical, radiographic, and histological/histomorphometric analysis of maxillary sinus grafting with deproteinized porcine or bovine bone mineral: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to compare histomorphometrically evaluated new bone formation, radiographically measured graft stability, and clinical implant outcome between maxillary sinus grafting with either deproteinized porcine bone mineral (DPBM) or deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty maxillary sinuses were initially included and randomly assigned to the test group (TG; DPBM, n = 15) or control group (CG; DBBM, n = 15). After a healing period (6 months), axially retrieved bone biopsies of the molar region were used for histological/histomorphometric analysis of new bone formations. Additionally, radiographically measured graft stability and clinical implant outcome were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-three sinus sites with 10 sinuses of the TG and 13 of the CG were ultimately available for data and statistical analysis. In the TG, a slightly, but yet significantly (p = .040) higher proportion of new bone formation (TG: 27.7 ± 5.6% vs. CG: 22.9 ± 5.1%) and a lesser (p = .019) amount of connective (non-mineralized) tissue (TG: 47.5 ± 9.5% vs. CG: 56.1 ± 9.5%) was found than in the CG. However, both xenografts showed comparable (n.s.) residual bone graft (TG: 23.7 ± 7.2% vs. CG: 21.1 ± 9.85.6%), bone-to-graft contacts (TG: 26.2 ± 9.8% vs. CG: 30.8 ± 13.8%), similar graft height reduction over time (TG: 12.9 ± 6.7% CG: 12.4 ± 5.8%) and implant survival/success rate (100%). At the 3-year post-loading evaluation, the peri-implant marginal bone loss (TG: 0.52 ± 0.19 mm; CG: 0.48 ± 0.15 mm) and the peri-implant health conditions (TG: 87.5%/CG: 81.2%) did not differ between implants inserted in both xenografts used.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DPBM or DBBM for maxillary sinus augmentation is associated with comparable bone formation providing stable graft dimension combined with healthy peri-implant conditions.

Vertical bone regeneration with a simultaneous dental implant in the aesthetic zone

Introduction

Bone defects hinder implant positioning. Vertical bone deficiency is the most challenging for clinical treatment, due to the high sensitivity of the technique and frequent intra- and postoperative complications. An alternative treatment for vertical defects is guided bone regeneration with simultaneous implantation; however, few studies have evaluated its effectiveness over time.

Objective

To evaluate peri-implant tissue stability in a dental implant simultaneously positioned in an aesthetic zone of an area of zone vertical bone regeneration 3 years after functional load.

Case Presentation

A 62-year-old male presented with the absence of the right lateral incisor and vertical bone defect of 3mm. His initial condition affected the relation of zenith points, causing disharmony. After case evaluation, vertical guided bone regeneration and simultaneous dental implants were performed to obtain a vertical bone gain of 3mm. The implant was rehabilitated with a zirconium crown and evaluated 3 years after functional loading.

Conclusion

Vertical guided bone regeneration and simultaneous dental implant in the aesthetic zone in small bone defects (<4 mm) is an appropriate surgical and prosthetic technique to reduce surgical time, providing stability of peri-implant tissues even 3 years after functional implant loading.

Alveolar ridge regeneration in two-wall-damaged extraction sockets of an in vivo experimental model

Aim

To determine the healing outcome following grafting with deproteinized porcine bone mineral (DPBM) with or without collagen membrane coverage in two‐wall (both buccal and lingual)‐damaged extraction sockets.

Materials and methods

Distal roots of three mandibular premolars in six beagle dogs were extracted, and the whole buccal and lingual bony walls were surgically removed. Three treatment protocols were then applied according to the following group allocation: no graft (None), grafting DPBM (BG), and grafting DPBM with coverage by a collagen membrane (BG + M). Two observational periods (2 and 8 weeks) were used with the split‐mouth design, and quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed by microcomputed tomography and histology.

Results

The dimensions of the alveolar ridge at both grafted sites (BG and BG + M) remained similar to those of the pristine ridge in the histologic and radiographic analyses, whereas the ungrafted sites (None) collapsed both vertically and horizontally. Both grafting protocols produced substantial bony regeneration, but the addition of a covering membrane enhanced the proportion of mineralized tissue within the augmented area, and the BG + M group also showed a significantly larger area of regenerated ridge than the None group (p < .05).

Conclusions

Bone grafting with collagen membrane can maintain the alveolar ridge dimensions with substantial bone regeneration in a two‐wall‐damaged extraction socket.