The efficacy of synthetic allograft and bioresorbable xenograft in immediate implant procedures: A comparative clinical study

D. Daniel, V. Shetty, Jerin Jose, A. Kumar, B. Santosh, S. Saikrrupa
{"title":"The efficacy of synthetic allograft and bioresorbable xenograft in immediate implant procedures: A comparative clinical study","authors":"D. Daniel, V. Shetty, Jerin Jose, A. Kumar, B. Santosh, S. Saikrrupa","doi":"10.4103/jdi.jdi_12_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: Immediate placement of an implant into the fresh extraction socket often leaves a space between the implant periphery and the surrounding bone, and the space between the implant and the bone is required to be filled with a biocompatible material such as a graft. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of synthetic bioactive glass allograft and dried freeze bovine bone grafts in the immediate implant site. Materials and Methods: The study comprised a total of thirty individuals in the age group between 16 and 60 years with at least one tooth indicated for extraction. The thirty participants were further divided into two groups. Group A comprised 15 participants who underwent extraction and buccal plate preservation (BPP), followed by immediate implant placement using synthetic allograft material (PerioGlas). Group B comprised 15 participants who underwent extraction and BPP, followed by immediate implant placement using xenograft as the graft material (Bio-Oss). The participants were evaluated both clinically and radiographically for 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: PerioGlas and Bio-Oss in immediate implant site showed excellent osseointegration around the immediate implant site. However, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Both synthetic allograft and bioresorbable xenograft are promising and equally potential in bone formation around the immediate implant site.","PeriodicalId":212982,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dental Implants","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dental Implants","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jdi.jdi_12_20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Aim: Immediate placement of an implant into the fresh extraction socket often leaves a space between the implant periphery and the surrounding bone, and the space between the implant and the bone is required to be filled with a biocompatible material such as a graft. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of synthetic bioactive glass allograft and dried freeze bovine bone grafts in the immediate implant site. Materials and Methods: The study comprised a total of thirty individuals in the age group between 16 and 60 years with at least one tooth indicated for extraction. The thirty participants were further divided into two groups. Group A comprised 15 participants who underwent extraction and buccal plate preservation (BPP), followed by immediate implant placement using synthetic allograft material (PerioGlas). Group B comprised 15 participants who underwent extraction and BPP, followed by immediate implant placement using xenograft as the graft material (Bio-Oss). The participants were evaluated both clinically and radiographically for 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: PerioGlas and Bio-Oss in immediate implant site showed excellent osseointegration around the immediate implant site. However, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Both synthetic allograft and bioresorbable xenograft are promising and equally potential in bone formation around the immediate implant site.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
合成同种异体移植物和生物可吸收异体移植物在即刻植入手术中的疗效:一项比较临床研究
目的:将种植体立即放置到新鲜的拔牙槽中,通常会在种植体周围和周围骨之间留下空间,并且种植体和骨之间的空间需要用诸如移植物之类的生物相容性材料填充。本研究的目的是比较合成生物活性玻璃异体骨和干冻牛骨在即刻种植部位的效果。材料和方法:本研究共包括30名年龄在16至60岁之间,至少有一颗牙齿需要拔除的个体。这30名参与者被进一步分为两组。A组包括15名参与者,他们接受拔牙和颊板保存(BPP),随后使用合成同种异体移植物材料(PerioGlas)立即植入种植体。B组包括15名参与者,他们接受拔牙和BPP,随后使用异种移植物作为移植物材料(Bio-Oss)立即植入。参与者分别在3个月、6个月和1年进行临床和影像学评估。P < 0.05为显著性水平。结果:即刻种植体周围的PerioGlas和Bio-Oss具有良好的骨整合性。然而,组间差异无统计学意义。结论:人工合成同种异体移植物和生物可吸收异体移植物在即刻种植部位周围骨形成方面都具有良好的前景和同等的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Piezo osteotomy with all-on-4 implants to enable a full-arch rehabilitation A comparative evaluation of bite pressure between single implant prosthesis and natural teeth: An in-vivo study Two implant-retained mandibular overdenture using locator attachment – A clinical report Systemic medications and implant success: Is there a link? Part three: The effects of antiresorptive and anti-angiogenic agents on the outcome of implant therapy Gender-based predilection for the microbial load of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans present in anterior versus posterior implant sites: A preliminary observational study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1