A Histologic and Histomorphometric Evaluation of an Allograft, Xenograft, and Alloplast Graft for Alveolar Ridge Preservation in Humans: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Author:

Zampara Eirini12,Alshammari Mukhlid1,De Bortoli Joao1,Mullings Otto1,Gkisakis Ioannis G.3,Benalcázar Jalkh Ernesto B.14,Tovar Nick15,Coelho Paulo G.167,Witek Lukasz18

Affiliation:

1. 1 Biomaterials Division, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, New York, USA.

2. 2 Department of Dental Implants and Tissue Regeneration, Hygeia Hospital, Marousi, Greece.

3. 3 Department of Oral Medicine and Pathology, University of Athens School of Dentistry, Athens, Greece.

4. 4 Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, University of Sao Paulo, Bauru School of Dentistry, Bauru, SP, Brazil.

5. 5 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, New York University, Langone Medical Center and Bellevue Hospital Center, New York, New York, USA.

6. 6 Department of Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.

7. 7 Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.

8. 8 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Tandon School of Engineering, New York University, Brooklyn, New York, USA.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to clinically evaluate the guided bone regeneration (GBR) potential of allograft, xenograft, and alloplastic materials in combination with resorbable membranes in extraction sockets. The qualitative and quantitative assessments of this prospective study were accomplished through histologic and histomorphometric analysis. Three experimental groups and 1 control group for comparison (n = 8) received either an allograft (human cancellous bone, freeze dried, Deutsches Institut für Zell und Gewebeersatz, Berlin, Germany), xenograft (BioOss, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland), or alloplast (biphasic calcium sulphate, Bondbone, MIS Implants Technologies Ltd., Charlotte, NC). The negative control group received no regenerative material. Tissue samples were then qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated as a function of percentage of new vital bone, graft particles content, soft tissue, and bone marrow over time. All 3 study groups presented bone volume suitable for the successful placement of a dental implant. The xenograft group yielded significantly less amount of vital bone compared with the allograft and alloplast groups. When comparing the percentage of residual graft particles, there was significantly greater amounts associated with the xenograft group in contrast to the allograft and alloplast groups. Similarly, a significantly increased amount of soft tissue percentage was observed within the xenograft group relative to all other groups. No significant differences were observed in the percentage of residual graft particles between the allograft and alloplast groups. There were also no significant differences detected in vital bone percentage between the allograft, alloplast, and control groups. When evaluating the bone marrow percentage, the only significant difference detected was between the xenograft and alloplast materials. Overall, no complications (ie, fever, malaise, purulence or fistula) were observed during the entirety of clinical trial among all patients. The greatest GBR potential was associated with the allograft material because of the greater degree of vital bone and the lowest percentage of residual graft particles. All studied bone substitute materials resulted in bone apposition for efficient use in alveolar ridge preservation procedures.

Publisher

American Academy of Implant Dentistry

Subject

Oral Surgery

Reference38 articles.

1. Irinakis T. Rationale for socket preservation after extraction of a single-rooted tooth when planning for future implant placement. J Can Dent Assoc. 2006; 72: 917– 922.

2. Pagni G, Pellegrini G, Giannobile WV, et al. Postextraction alveolar ridge preservation: biological basis and treatments. Int J Dent. 2012; 2012: 151030.

3. Chappuis V, Araujo MG, Buser D. Clinical relevance of dimensional bone and soft tissue alterations post-extraction in esthetic sites. Periodontology 2000. 2017; 73: 73– 83.

4. Van der Weijden F, Dell'Acqua F, Slot DE. Alveolar bone dimensional changes of post-extraction sockets in humans: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2009; 36: 1048– 1058.

5. Mezzomo L, Shinkai R, Mardas N, et al. Alveolar ridge preservation after dental extraction and before implant placement: a literature review. Rev Odonto Ciência. 2010; 26: 77– 83.

Cited by 9 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3