Affiliation:
1. Department of Periodontology Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University Seoul South Korea
2. Innovation Research and Support Center for Dental Science Yonsei University Dental Hospital Seoul South Korea
3. Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland
Abstract
AbstractAimTo investigate whether transmucosal healing is as effective as submerged healing in terms of buccal bone regeneration when guided bone regeneration (GBR) is performed simultaneously with implant placement.Materials and MethodsIn six dogs, buccal dehiscence defects were created in the edentulous mandibular ridge, sized 5 × 5 × 3 mm (length × height × depth). In each defect, a bone‐level implant was placed, and four experimental groups were randomly assigned as follows: (i) transmucosal healing with GBR (T‐GBR), (ii) transmucosal healing without GBR (T‐control), (iii) submerged healing with GBR (S‐GBR) and (iv) submerged healing without GBR (S‐control). Data analyses were based on histological slides 5 months after implant placement.ResultsThe T‐GBR group showed significant differences compared to the control groups regarding defect height resolution, buccal bone thickness and mineralized tissue area (p < .05), but showed no significant differences when compared with the S‐GBR group (p > .05).ConclusionsThe mode of healing (transmucosal vs. submerged) does not influence bone regeneration at implant sites. The clinician may therefore choose the approach based on further clinical and patient‐specific parameters.