Prospective Clinical and Radiographic Study of Alveolar Ridge Preservation Combining Freeze‐Dried Bone Allograft With Two Xenogeneic Collagen Matrices

Abstract

Both xenogeneic collagen matrices combined with FDBA were effective in maintaining soft tissues and minimizing ridge resorption in all dimensions after ARP. BPT was an important determinant for amount of change in crestal GT and ridge width.

Efficacy of collagen matrix seal and collagen sponge on ridge preservation in combination with bone allograft: A randomized controlled clinical trial

“…The hard tissue dimensional changes that we report in this study resemble changes reported in recent studies of tooth extraction and ridge preservation by others that used either an autogenous soft tissue (free gingival graft) punch (6–8 mm in diameter) or a punch modification of the CM with the same diameter (similar to the CMS) to cover the bone graft (Jung et al., ; Schneider et al., ). Those changes are also consistent with the results observed in a recent study that performed ARP with a combination of FDBA and CM or an extracellular collagen matrix as barriers (Parashis et al., ).…”

“…However, other authors did not report any significant differences with or without flap elevation (Araujo & Lindhe, ) and a recent systematic review found that flap elevation had a beneficial effect on preservation of buccal alveolar bone height (Avila‐Ortiz, Elangovan, Kramer, Blanchette, & Dawson, ). Although it is suggested that wound dehiscence and membrane exposure could result in infection and lack of bone formation, recent studies show that the intentional exposure of bioabsorbable barriers does not seem to adversely affect ARP procedures (Barone et al., ; Jung et al., ; Parashis et al., ). We observed no adverse effects in this study where the barriers were left exposed to the oral cavity, and sutures were used primarily to stabilize the barriers in place.…”

“…The sample size was determined using the G*power program (version 3.1.9, Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.‐G., & Buchner, A, Germany). Assuming an effect size of 1.31 based on a clinically meaningful 10% expected difference in bone width between the two groups and using the highest standard deviation reported of 7.6% (Jung et al., ; Kim et al., ; Parashis et al., ; Schneider et al., ), a sample size of 22 patients (11 per group) was adequate to obtain a Type I error rate of 5% and a power of 80%. To account for approximately 20% potential dropout, 28 patients were recruited, 14 per group.…”

“…Initial evidence for the potential benefits of using the CMS in ridge preservation is available only from two studies (Jung et al., ; Schneider et al., ), and for the CM membrane from a case series (Parashis et al., ) and a recent clinical study (Parashis et al., ). There is a lack of data comparing the CMS with other methods of ridge preservation.…”

“…Clinically, this new collagen matrix was associated with a sufficient width of newly formed keratinized gingiva on teeth and implants and coverage of Miller class I and II recession defects (Cardaropoli, Tamagnone, Roffredo, & Gaveglio, 2012;Jepsen et al, 2013;Lorenzo, Garcia, Orsini, Martin, & Sanz, 2012;McGuire & Scheyer, 2010;Nevins, Nevins, Kim, Schupbach, & Kim, 2011;Sanz, Lorenzo, Aranda, Martin, & Orsini, 2009;Schmitt et al, 2013;Schwarz et al, 2012). The structural characteristics of the CM are designed to ensure that it maintains its barrier function for at least 30 days and therefore can be used as a guided bone regeneration device (Cioban et al, 2013;Ghanaati et al, 2011;Lindhe, Cecchinato, Donati, Tomasi, & Liljenberg, 2014;Parashis, Kalaitzakis, Tatakis, & Tosios, 2014;Parashis et al, 2016).…”