Buccal bone remodeling after tooth extraction using the flapless approach with and without synthetic bone grafting. A histomorphometric study in dogs

Abstract

It was observed that there was no loss of the buccal bone crest in relation to the lingual bone crest, especially in the test group.

Influence of Periodontal Biotype on Buccal Bone Remodeling after Tooth Extraction Using the Flapless Approach with a Xenograft: A Histomorphometric and Fluorescence Study in Small Dogs

“…No difference between grafted (CG + GM: 0.40 ± 0.28 mm) and nongrafted (CG: 0.64 ± 0.33 mm) sites was observed in our study regarding the distance between the buccal and lingual crests. Similar results have been reported in the literature . Bashara and colleagues studied the effect of different biomaterials on hard tissue remodeling following their placement into fresh extraction sockets in dogs after 6 months of healing, and reported a similar amount of vertical buccal bone loss in sites treated with bovine bone (Bio‐Oss) (0.65 ± 0.40 mm) and sites that healed with a blood clot (0.70 ± 0.35 mm).…”

“…Rothamel and colleagues, evaluating the alterations in ridge dimensions following application of a nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite paste in fresh extraction sockets in dogs, observed a difference in bone height between buccal and lingual bone of 0.54 ± 0.62 mm in grafted sites and 0.85 ± 0.17 mm in nongrafted sites at 3 months of healing. Suaid and colleagues also reported low bone loss in extraction sockets grafted with biphasic calcium phosphate. The authors reported a buccal bone level of 0.26 ± 0.67 mm apical to the lingual bone in grafted sites and 0.80 ± 1.14 mm apical in the nongrafted sites.…”

“…The ARW, measured 1 mm below the highest point of the bone in the socket, was very similar among the groups, approximately 4 mm. Suaid and colleagues, with a similar methodology, reported 5.2 mm and 5.0 mm for grafted and nongrafted sites, respectively. These values, higher than those presented in this study, make it clear that our dogs were smaller and, consequently, with thinner oral tissues.…”

“…Regarding the new bone area, in our study around 30% of the total bone area consisted of new bone in all experimental sites. Using a similar methodology, Suaid and colleagues observed 15.62% new bone to be in the grafted sites and 22.24% in the nongrafted sites. In this study, higher levels of new bone formation were obtained, which may be due to the thickness of the lingual and buccal bone plates and perhaps to the biomaterial that was used.…”

“…Therefore, various graft materials, including autogenous bone, bioactive glass, coralline calcium carbonate, decalcified freeze-dried bone, deproteinized bovine bone, and hydroxyapatite, have been used in attempts to preserve the alveolar ridge following tooth extraction. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] One particular xenogenic graft composed of deproteinized bovine bone mineral is the material of which use in socket preservation procedures is most frequently reported in the literature. 13,16,17,19 This biomaterial acts as a scaffold for new bone formation.…”