Volume 21, Issue 7 pp. 688-698

Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration and a synthetic bone substitute or a bovine-derived xenograft: a randomized, controlled clinical trial

Nikos Mardas

Nikos Mardas

Periodontology Unit, UCL – Eastman Dental Institute, London, UK.

Search for more papers by this author
Vivek Chadha

Vivek Chadha

Periodontology Unit, UCL – Eastman Dental Institute, London, UK.

Search for more papers by this author
Nikolaos Donos

Nikolaos Donos

Periodontology Unit, UCL – Eastman Dental Institute, London, UK.

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 07 June 2010
Citations: 189
Corresponding author:
Prof. Nikolaos Donos, DDS, MS, FTHE, FDSRCS(Engl) PhD
Periodontology Unit
Department of Clinical Research
UCL – Eastman Dental Institute
University College London
256 Gray's Inn Road
London, WC1X8LD, UK
Tel.: +44 20 7915 1075
Fax: +44 20 7915 1137
e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this randomized, controlled clinical trial was to compare the potential of a synthetic bone substitute or a bovine-derived xenograft combined with a collagen membrane to preserve the alveolar ridge dimensions following tooth extraction.

Methods: Twenty-seven patients were randomized into two treatment groups following single tooth extraction in the incisor, canine and premolar area. In the test group, the alveolar socket was grafted with Straumann Bone Ceramic® (SBC), while in the control group, Bio-Oss® deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) was applied. In both groups, a collagen barrier was used to cover the grafting material. Complete soft tissue coverage of the barriers was not achieved. After 8 months, during re-entry procedures and before implant placement, the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the residual ridge were re-evaluated and trephine biopsies were performed for histological analysis in all patients.

Results: Twenty-six patients completed the study. The bucco-lingual dimension of the alveolar ridge decreased by 1.1±1 mm in the SBC group and by 2.1±1 in the DBBM group (P<0.05). Both materials preserved the mesio-distal bone height of the ridge. No differences in the width of buccal and palatal bone plate were observed between the two groups. The histological analysis showed new bone formation in the apical part of the biopsies, which, in some instances, was in direct contact with both SBC and DBBM particles. The coronal part of the biopsies was occupied by a dense fibrous connective tissue surrounding the SBC and DBBM particles.

Conclusion: Both biomaterials partially preserved the width and the interproximal bone height of the alveolar ridge.

To cite this article:
Mardas N, Chadha V, Donos N. Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration and a synthetic bone substitute or a bovine-derived xenograft: a randomized, controlled clinical trial.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21, 2010; 688–698.

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