In vivo experimental study comparing alveolar ridge preservation versus guided bone regeneration after unassisted socket healing at intact and damaged sites in narrow alveolar ridges

Abstract

BackgroundTo compare bone regeneration and dimensional alteration of alveolar ridge at intact and damaged extraction sockets after alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and implant placement versus unassisted socket healing followed by guided bone regeneration (GBR) with simultaneous implant placement.MethodsIn 6 beagle dogs, 3 types of extraction sockets in the mandible were created: (1) intact sockets, (2) 1‐wall defect sockets and (3) 2‐wall defect sockets. The sockets were allocated to undergo either (1) ARP and implant placement 8 weeks later (ARP group) or (2) GBR with simultaneous implant placement after 8 weeks of unassisted socket healing (GBR group). After an additional healing period of 8 weeks, bone regeneration and dimensional changes were evaluated radiographically and histologically.ResultsGBR showed superior bone formation and greater bone gains compared to ARP, regardless of the initial extraction‐socket configuration. Although ARP maintained the preexisting alveolar ridge dimensions, peri‐implant bone defects were still detected at 8 weeks of follow‐up. Histomorphometric analyses confirmed that GBR increased dimensions of the alveolar ridge compared to baseline, and the augmentation and bone regeneration were greater with GBR than with ARP.ConclusionEarly implant placement with ARP can mitigate alveolar ridge changes in the narrow alveolar ridge. However, early implant placement with simultaneous GBR creates the conditions for enhanced bone regeneration around the implant and greater ridge augmentation compared to ARP, irrespective of the extraction‐socket configuration.