Healing patterns of alveolar bone following ridge preservation procedures

IF 4.8 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Clinical Oral Implants Research Pub Date : 2024-08-06 DOI:10.1111/clr.14332

Neil MacBeth, Nikos Mardas, Graham Davis, Nikos Donos

{"title":"Healing patterns of alveolar bone following ridge preservation procedures","authors":"Neil MacBeth, Nikos Mardas, Graham Davis, Nikos Donos","doi":"10.1111/clr.14332","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Examine the histomorphometric bone composition, following alveolar ridge preservation techniques and unassisted socket healing.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Forty-two patients (42) requiring a single rooted tooth extraction were randomly allocated into three groups (<i>n</i> = 14 per group): Group 1: Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) using deproteinised bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and a porcine collagen membrane; Group 2: Socket Seal (SS) technique using DBBM and a porcine collagen matrix; Group 3: Unassisted socket healing (Control). Trephined bone biopsies were harvested following a 4-month healing period. Forty-two samples underwent Back-Scattered Electrons -Scanning Electron Microscopy (BSE-SEM) imaging, with 15 samples examined using Xray Micro-Tomography (XMT) (<i>n</i> = 6 for each GBR/SS and <i>n</i> = 3 Control). Images were analysed to determine the percentage (%) of connective tissue, new bone formation, residual DBBM particles and direct bone to DBBM particle contact (osseointegration).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>BSE-SEM analysis demonstrated that new bone formation was higher in the Control (45.89% ± 11.48) compared to both GBR (22.12% ± 12.7/<i>p</i> < .004) and SS (27.62% ± 17.76/<i>p</i> < .005) groups. The connective tissue percentage in GBR (49.72% ± 9), SS (47.81% ± 12.57) and Control (47.81% ± 12.57) groups was similar. GBR (28.17% ± 16.64) and SS (24.37% ± 18.61) groups had similar levels of residual DBBM particles. XMT volumetric analysis indicated a lower level of bone and DBBM particles in all test groups, when matched to the BSE-SEM area measurements. Osseointegration levels (DBBM graft and bone) were recorded at 35.66% (± 9.8) for GBR and 31.18% (± 19.38) for SS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>GBR and SS ARP techniques presented with less bone formation when compared to unassisted healing. GBR had more direct contact/osseointegration between the DBBM particles and newly formed bone.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"35 11","pages":"1452-1466"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.14332","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14332","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Examine the histomorphometric bone composition, following alveolar ridge preservation techniques and unassisted socket healing.

Materials and Methods

Forty-two patients (42) requiring a single rooted tooth extraction were randomly allocated into three groups (n = 14 per group): Group 1: Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) using deproteinised bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and a porcine collagen membrane; Group 2: Socket Seal (SS) technique using DBBM and a porcine collagen matrix; Group 3: Unassisted socket healing (Control). Trephined bone biopsies were harvested following a 4-month healing period. Forty-two samples underwent Back-Scattered Electrons -Scanning Electron Microscopy (BSE-SEM) imaging, with 15 samples examined using Xray Micro-Tomography (XMT) (n = 6 for each GBR/SS and n = 3 Control). Images were analysed to determine the percentage (%) of connective tissue, new bone formation, residual DBBM particles and direct bone to DBBM particle contact (osseointegration).

Results

BSE-SEM analysis demonstrated that new bone formation was higher in the Control (45.89% ± 11.48) compared to both GBR (22.12% ± 12.7/p < .004) and SS (27.62% ± 17.76/p < .005) groups. The connective tissue percentage in GBR (49.72% ± 9), SS (47.81% ± 12.57) and Control (47.81% ± 12.57) groups was similar. GBR (28.17% ± 16.64) and SS (24.37% ± 18.61) groups had similar levels of residual DBBM particles. XMT volumetric analysis indicated a lower level of bone and DBBM particles in all test groups, when matched to the BSE-SEM area measurements. Osseointegration levels (DBBM graft and bone) were recorded at 35.66% (± 9.8) for GBR and 31.18% (± 19.38) for SS.

Conclusion

GBR and SS ARP techniques presented with less bone formation when compared to unassisted healing. GBR had more direct contact/osseointegration between the DBBM particles and newly formed bone.

Abstract Image

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

牙槽骨在牙脊保存术后的愈合模式。

目的研究牙槽嵴保留技术和无辅助牙槽窝愈合后的组织形态学骨组成：将 42 名需要单根拔牙的患者随机分为三组（每组 14 人）：第 1 组：使用脱蛋白牛骨矿物质（DBBM）和猪胶原蛋白膜的引导骨再生（GBR）；第 2 组：使用 DBBM 和猪胶原蛋白基质的牙槽密封（SS）技术；第 3 组：无辅助牙槽愈合（对照组）。在 4 个月的愈合期后采集畸形骨活检样本。42 个样本接受了背散射电子扫描电子显微镜（BSE-SEM）成像，15 个样本接受了 X 射线显微断层扫描（XMT）检查（GBR/SS 组各 6 个样本，对照组 3 个样本）。对图像进行分析，以确定结缔组织、新骨形成、残留 DBBM 颗粒和骨与 DBBM 颗粒直接接触（骨结合）的百分比（%）：结果：BSE-SEM 分析表明，与 GBR（22.12%±12.7/p）相比，对照组（45.89%±11.48）的新骨形成率更高：与非辅助愈合相比，GBR 和 SS ARP 技术的骨形成较少。GBR 在 DBBM 颗粒和新形成的骨之间有更多的直接接触/骨结合。

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

Clinical Oral Implants Research 医学-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

7.70

自引率

11.60%

发文量

149

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.