A single‐centre randomized controlled clinical trial on the adjunct treatment of intra‐bony defects with autogenous bone or a xenograft: results after 12 months

Abstract

Bovine xenograft provided more radiographic bone fill than AB. The success for both surgical regenerative procedures was limited. Decreases in PD, BOP, and suppuration were observed.

Reconstructive Procedures for Treating Peri-implantitis

“…This meta-analysis shows that the mean RDF achieved after reconstructive procedures was 2.17 mm. The lowest bone fill-0.2 mm and 1.1 mm with the use of autografts and xenografts, respectively-was reported by a controlled study (Aghazadeh et al, 2012). This difference might be a result of the radiopaque nature and slow resorption rate of the xenograft.…”

“…The use of "xenograft derived bone substitutes with autografts" (Wiltfang et al, 2012) yielded an aboveaverage defect fill. Defect features (Schwarz et al, 2010), implant surfaces (Roccuzzo et al, 2011), and grafting materials (Aghazadeh et al, 2012) are also factors that may explain the variability in defect fill among the included studies.…”

“…Two studies (Schwarz et al, 2009;Aghazadeh et al, 2012) evaluated the effect of different bone materials on the amount of RDF. The results showed that xenografts provided more RBF than autogenous grafts (Aghazadeh et al, 2012). The better outcome obtained from xenografts might be attributed to slower resorption rate of the material and the radiopaque property.…”

“…ND ND 0.1 ± 0.4 6.7 ± 0.7 1.6 ± 0.9 7.1 ± 0.9 1.2 ± 1.1 81.5 38.9 0.4 ± 0.7 Uneventful ND ND 0.1 ± 0.3 7.1 ± 0.6 1.6 ± 0.7 7.5 ± 0.9 1.1 ± 0.9 83.3 25.9 0.5 ± 0.5 ND ND -0.2 ± 0.3 7.0 ± 0.5 2.7 ± 0.7 7.5 ± 0.8 2.4 ± 1.0 85.2 61.1 0.3 ± 0.6 7: Roccuzzo et al (2011) 3.9 ± 1.6 1.9 ± 1.3 29.10% 6.8 ± 1.2 3.4 ± 1.7 ND ND 75.0 60.4 ND Uneventful 3.0 ± 0.9 1.6 ± 0.7 33.90% 7.2 ± 1.5 2.1 ± 1.2 ND ND 91.1 33.9 ND 8: Aghazadeh et al (2012) 5.8 ± 1.7 0.2 ± 1.8 10.9 ± 30.6 % 6.0 ± 1.3 2.0 ± 1.2 ND ND 87.5 44.8 ND ND…”

“…The effectiveness of reconstructive procedures has been measured by a variety of radiographic and clinical parameters-among them, radiographic defect fill (RDF), probing depth (PD) reduction, clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, and reduction of bleeding on probing (BOP) (Roos-Jansaker et al, 2007a, 2007bSchwarz et al, 2009;Aghazadeh et al, 2012). A successful procedure should result in resolution of inflammation, readhesion of peri-implant soft tissues, bone regeneration, and reosseointegration.…”