Guided bone regeneration at dehiscence comparing synthetic bone substitute versus bovine bone mineral: A multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial

Abstract

AbstractAimTo evaluate the efficacy of guided bone regeneration (GBR) for the treatment of peri‐implant dehiscence defects using a synthetic bone substitute (SBS) or a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) as a bone substitute.MethodsPatients with expected dehiscence defects following implant placement were randomized to use either SBS or DBBM together with a bioabsorbable collagen membrane over dehiscenced implant surfaces aimed for GBR. The changes in the bone defect size were measured before the GBR procedure and 6 months after implant placement at the re‐entry surgery. Secondary outcomes included peri‐implant health outcomes, implant cumulative survival rates, bone level changes, and patient‐reported outcomes (PROMs) at prosthesis delivery and 1‐year follow‐up.ResultsOf the 49 included patients, 24 were treated with SBS and 25 with DBBM. In the SBS group, the defect height (DH) at implant insertion was 5.1 ± 2.6 mm and was reduced at re‐entry to 1.3 ± 2.0 mm (74.5%). In the DBBM group, the respective changes in DH were 4.1 ± 1.7 mm and 1.5 ± 1.9 mm (63.4%). These differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.216). The complete defect resolution rate was also comparable in both groups without statistical difference (62.5% of patients (15/24) vs. 44% of patients (11/25)). Overall, the marginal bone levels remained stable during the 1‐year follow‐up in both groups.ConclusionThe SBS is noninferior to DBBM for simultaneous GBR to implant placement at implant sites with buccal dehiscences in terms of defect resolution and evaluated secondary outcomes (KCT0008393 − this clinical trial was not registered before participant recruitment and randomization).