Half‐ and full‐grafting alveolar ridge preservation with different sealing materials: A three‐arm randomized clinical trial

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveThe objective of this study is to investigate the effect of different alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) approaches on bone resorption and their potential for facilitating implant placement.Materials and methodsPatients who underwent one or two tooth extractions with a desire for restoration were included in the study. The participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups for ARP. The groups were as follows: (1) Half grafting of bovine bone mineral (DBBM‐C) covered with non‐resorbable dense polytetrafluoroethylene (dPTFE) membrane (Test 1 group); (2) Half grafting of bovine bone mineral (DBBM‐C) covered with collagen membrane (Test 2 group); and (3) Full grafting with collagen membrane (DBBM‐C + Collagen membrane) as the Control group. After 6‐month healing period, the evaluation encompassed clinical, radiographic, implant‐related outcomes, and the factors contributing to hard and soft tissue alterations.ResultsEnrollment in this study comprised 56 patients. At the 6‐month follow‐up, radiographic analysis in computed beam computed tomography images was conducted for 18, 19, and 19 patients with 18, 20, and 20 tooth sites in Test 1, Test 2, and Control groups, respectively. Additionally, a total of 15, 17, and 17 patients with 15, 18, and 17 implants were evaluated. Based on radiographic analysis, all groups showed limited ridge resorption at 1 mm from crest horizontally (Test 1: 1.29 ± 1.37; Test 2: 1.07 ± 1.07; Control: 1.54 ± 1.33 mm, p = 0.328), while the Control group showed greater radiographic bone height gain in mid‐crestal part vertically (Test 1: 0.11 ± 1.02; Test 2: 0.29 ± 0.83; Control: −0.46 ± 0.95 mm, p = 0.032). There were no significant intergroup differences in terms of keratinized mucosal width, bone density, insertion torque, and the need of additional bone graft. However, the use of a dPTFE membrane resulted in a significantly higher vertical mucosal thickness (Test 1: 2.67 ± 0.90; Test 2: 3.89 ± 1.08; Control: 2.41 ± 0.51 mm, p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe study showed comparable dimensional preservation with limited vertical shrinkage, while thin buccal bone plate, non‐molar sites, and large discrepancy between buccal and palatal/lingual height may contribute to greater shrinkage. Thicker mucosa with dPTFE membrane required further investigation for interpretation.Clinical trial registration numberNCT06049823. This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization.