Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single‐blind controlled clinical trial

MacBeth, N; Donos, Nikolaos; Mardas, Nikos

doi:10.1111/clr.13933

Cited by 29 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, the modest level of participants' perception of pain, swelling, bleeding, bruising, and root sensitivity during the first week following ARP was within the range of well toleration. The VAS scores for these perceptions, however, did not concur with those reported in other studies following other ARP treatment modalities (Barone et al, 2013;Festa et al, 2013;Macbeth et al, 2022), particularly in terms of pain, bleeding, and bruising scores during the first 2 days of healing. In fact, the combined use of DBBM and EMD in our study has significantly increased the VAS scores for bruising on Day 1, bleeding and bruising on Day 2, and even swelling on Day 6.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 78%

Enamel matrix derivative for alveolar ridge preservation: A randomized controlled trial

Atieh,

Al‐Ali,

Shah

et al. 2023

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe aims of this clinical trial were to evaluate the radiographic dimensional changes in alveolar ridge and patient‐reported outcomes following tooth extraction and alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using either deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) with EMD or DBBM alone.MethodsParticipants requiring at least one posterior tooth extraction and ARP were randomly allocated into two treatment groups: ARP using either DBBM with EMD or DBBM alone. Cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were recorded immediately prior to extraction and at 6 months. Changes in alveolar ridge height (ARH) and alveolar ridge width (ARW) at 1, 3, and 5 mm were recorded.ResultsA total of 18 participants with 25 preserved sites were evaluated. ARH and ARW changed significantly from baseline to 6 months for both treatment groups but the difference between the groups was not statistically significant over the 6‐month follow‐up period (ARH: DBBM/EMD 1.26 ± 1.53 mm vs. DBBM 2.26 ± 1.60 mm; ARW‐1 DBBM/EMD 1.98 ± 1.80 mm vs. DBBM 2.34 ± 1.89 mm). A significant difference, favoring DBBM with EMD group, was observed in percentage of sites that had less than 1 mm loss in ARH (54.5% sites in DBBM/EMD group vs. 14.3% sites in DBBM alone group). The participants' perception of bruising, bleeding, and pain in the first two postoperative days was significantly in favor of DBBM alone group.ConclusionsThere were no significant differences in radiographic mean measurements of ARH and ARW following ARB with DBBM and EMD or DBBM alone.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 78%

Enamel matrix derivative for alveolar ridge preservation: A randomized controlled trial

Atieh,

Al‐Ali,

Shah

et al. 2023

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The strength of this paper is the routine use of autologous particulate bone harvested with a simple drill from the mandibular ramus ( Figure 2 ) and the use of CBCT referral for each measurement reported. Although many papers have reported the possible benefits of socket preservation after tooth extraction, few papers have used standardized preoperative and postoperative CBCT images to evaluate the measurements [ 34 ]. The majority of socket preservation research has compared preoperative measurements performed on intraoral bidimensional radiography with postoperative bidimensional or three-dimensional images, or on a resin template with periodontal probe measurements and clinical measurements of the bone width [ 16 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…MacBeth et al, in their randomized, single-blind controlled clinical trial, used CBCT immediately after tooth removal and four months after extraction. This methodology was revealed to be more accurate as the absence of a tooth in the images allowed for more detailed measurements [ 34 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socket Preservation after Tooth Extraction: Particulate Autologous Bone vs. Deproteinized Bovine Bone

Chisci¹,

Hatia

Chisci³

et al. 2023

Bioengineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The technique of socket preservation after tooth extraction allows for less volumetric decrease after tooth extraction. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate differences between alveolar socket preservation performed with deproteinized bovine bone graft and autologous particulate bone graft taken from the mandibular ramus. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study enrolled a total of 21 consecutive patients. A total of 11 patients underwent socket preservation with deproteinized bovine bone graft and collagen matrix (group A), and 10 patients underwent socket preservation performed with particulate autologous bone taken from the mandibular ramus and collagen matrix (group B). All patients received cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) before socket preservation and after four months. Alveolar bone width (ABW) values and alveolar bone height (ABH) values were measured at the first and second CBCT, and the reduction of the values in the two groups was compared. Statistical analysis was performed using Student’s t-test for independent variables, and p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between ABW reduction of group A and ABW reduction of group B (t-test value p = 0.28). There were no statistically significant differences between ABH reduction of group A and ABH reduction of group B (t-test value p = 0.10). Conclusions: In this retrospective study, no statistical differences were found between the group that received autologous particulate bone compared to the group that received deproteinized bovine bone in socket preservation.

show abstract

“…A recent clinical trial comparing guided bone regeneration (GBR) versus socket seal technique revealed that GBR was more effective at reducing radiographic bone resorption. 34 To date, mainly bone of deproteinized bovine origin or alloplastic materials was used as graft material. 35 These materials showed the features of space maintaining and were embedded in the bone matrix in formation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Different Techniques in Post-Extractive Socket Regeneration Using Autologous Tooth Graft: Histological and Clinical Outcomes

Minetti,

Palermo,

Berardini

2023

Eur J Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Post-extractive socket grafting techniques reduce alveolar ridge dimensional changes. Numerous graft materials have been suggested and a growing interest in tooth material has been observed as a valuable alternative to synthetic biomaterials or xenografts. Furthermore, different clinical procedures have been proposed for the wound closure of the post-extractive site. This study aims to compare histological and clinical outcomes of two different surgical techniques to seal the post-extractive site with the use of autologous demineralized extracted tooth as graft material. Materials and Methods Sixteen post-extractive socket without buccal and/or palatal bone walls, in sixteen healthy patients, were grafted with the autologous tooth material treated by the new Tooth Transformer device (Tooth Transformer, Milan, Italy). Alveolar socket preservation procedures were performed without flap elevation. Patients were randomly subdivided into two equal groups according to the site closure technique. In group A, the pedunculate tissue was used, while in group B ice cone technique. A bone samples were collected in each site after 4 months for histological analysis. Results No significant clinical differences among the different sealing techniques were observed. In both groups, the site was filled by new bone formation after 4 months of healing. The histological analysis revealed 46.1 ± 8.07% of bone volume, 9.2 ± 9.46% of residual graft, and 35.2 ± 12.36% of vital bone in group A, while group B shows 41.22 ± 5.88% of bone volume, 7.94 ± 7.54% of residual graft, and 31.7 ± 7.52% new bone. No statistical differences were detected (p > 0.05). Conclusion Further studies with a large number of patients, and different observation periods will be needed to confirm the results of this pilot study; however, the interesting data obtained have shown how these techniques, mixed with the autologous dentin derived graft material, seem to promote bone regeneration and reduce physiological bone resorption during alveolar socket preservation treatments.

show abstract

Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single‐blind controlled clinical trial

Cited by 29 publications

References 69 publications

Enamel matrix derivative for alveolar ridge preservation: A randomized controlled trial

Enamel matrix derivative for alveolar ridge preservation: A randomized controlled trial

Socket Preservation after Tooth Extraction: Particulate Autologous Bone vs. Deproteinized Bovine Bone

Comparison of Different Techniques in Post-Extractive Socket Regeneration Using Autologous Tooth Graft: Histological and Clinical Outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About