Volume 17, Issue 5 pp. 957-971
ARTICLE

Evaluation of Guided Bone Regeneration around Oral Implants over Different Healing Times Using Two Different Bovine Bone Materials: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical and Histological Investigation

Ralf Joachim Kohal DDS, Dr med dent habil, PhD

Ralf Joachim Kohal DDS, Dr med dent habil, PhD

Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
Lisa Marie Straub DDS, Dr med dent

Lisa Marie Straub DDS, Dr med dent

Chung-U Nam Dental Practice, Berlin, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
Martin Wolkewitz PhD, Dr Sc hum

Martin Wolkewitz PhD, Dr Sc hum

Institute of Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
Maria Bächle Dr Dipl Biol

Maria Bächle Dr Dipl Biol

Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
Sebastian Berthold Maximilian Patzelt DMD, Dr med dent

Corresponding Author

Sebastian Berthold Maximilian Patzelt DMD, Dr med dent

Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany

Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA

Corresponding Author: Dr. Sebastian B. M. Patzelt, University Medical Center, School of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Hugstetter Strasse 55, 79106 Freiburg, Germany; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
First published: 20 February 2014
Citations: 12

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the potential of two bone substitute materials and the influence of different healing periods in guided bone regeneration therapy of osseous defects around implants.

Materials and Methods

Twenty-four edentulous patients received implants in the region of the lost lower incisors. Around two standardized osseous defects were created, treated either with a 50:50 mixture of PepGen P-15® and OsteoGraf®/N-700 (test group) or with BioOss® (control group), and covered with titanium membranes. After healing periods of 2, 4, 6, or 9 months, the implants were removed together with the surrounding bone and subsequently prepared for histological evaluations.

Results

Defect depths in both groups showed a clinical reduction after intervention. The histologically measured distance from the implant shoulder to the first point of bone-implant contact (BIC) after treatment did not differ between the two groups. The healing time influenced the level of the first point of BIC, with a longer healing period producing a more coronal first point of BIC. A greater percentage BIC and a higher fraction of mineralized bone were found in the pristine bone area compared with the augmented defect area.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that in the treatment of osseous defects around oral implants, both materials were equally effective bone substitute materials when used in combination with guided bone regeneration.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.