Bioceramics for Guided Bone Regeneration: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Yulan Wang, Gang Fu, Jian Zhang, Yan Xu, Ming Shen, Zhe Yi, Jing Lan, Qiang Li, Yangsheng Zhao, Runfa Wu, Yufeng Zhang
{"title":"Bioceramics for Guided Bone Regeneration: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Yulan Wang, Gang Fu, Jian Zhang, Yan Xu, Ming Shen, Zhe Yi, Jing Lan, Qiang Li, Yangsheng Zhao, Runfa Wu, Yufeng Zhang","doi":"10.1111/cid.13437","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the clinical effectiveness of a novel bioceramic (BC) with a control xenograft (BO) for guided bone regeneration (GBR) performed simultaneously with implant placement.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This clinical study enrolled patients with insufficient bone volume who required GBR during implant placement to increase bone width using either BC or BO. Outcome measures included a dimensional reduction in buccal bone thickness measured by cone beam computed tomography performed immediately post-surgery and at 6 months postoperatively (ΔHBBT), soft tissue healing at 14 days, 1 month, and 6 months postoperatively, and complications rates. The primary outcome was the change in buccal bone thickness around the implant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the total 152 patients included, 76 from each group received BC and BO treatments. The ΔHBBT in BC and BO groups were -0.276 mm (-0.432, -0.121) and -0.614 mm (-0.769, -0.459) mm, respectively, rejecting the null hypothesis. No significant difference in soft tissue healing was observed between the two groups, with no inflammatory changes in 96.05% and 90.79% of the BC and BO groups, respectively, at 2 weeks postoperatively. However, the BC group exhibited a lower overall complication rate (3.95%), including mild inflammation, poor soft tissue healing, and bone graft extrusion in 3 out of 76 patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both BC and BO demonstrated favorable outcomes in bone regeneration and soft tissue healing when used for simultaneous implant placement and bone augmentation.</p>","PeriodicalId":93944,"journal":{"name":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","volume":"27 1","pages":"e13437"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13437","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the clinical effectiveness of a novel bioceramic (BC) with a control xenograft (BO) for guided bone regeneration (GBR) performed simultaneously with implant placement.

Materials and methods: This clinical study enrolled patients with insufficient bone volume who required GBR during implant placement to increase bone width using either BC or BO. Outcome measures included a dimensional reduction in buccal bone thickness measured by cone beam computed tomography performed immediately post-surgery and at 6 months postoperatively (ΔHBBT), soft tissue healing at 14 days, 1 month, and 6 months postoperatively, and complications rates. The primary outcome was the change in buccal bone thickness around the implant.

Results: Of the total 152 patients included, 76 from each group received BC and BO treatments. The ΔHBBT in BC and BO groups were -0.276 mm (-0.432, -0.121) and -0.614 mm (-0.769, -0.459) mm, respectively, rejecting the null hypothesis. No significant difference in soft tissue healing was observed between the two groups, with no inflammatory changes in 96.05% and 90.79% of the BC and BO groups, respectively, at 2 weeks postoperatively. However, the BC group exhibited a lower overall complication rate (3.95%), including mild inflammation, poor soft tissue healing, and bone graft extrusion in 3 out of 76 patients.

Conclusions: Both BC and BO demonstrated favorable outcomes in bone regeneration and soft tissue healing when used for simultaneous implant placement and bone augmentation.

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
生物陶瓷引导骨再生:一项多中心随机对照试验。
目的:比较一种新型生物陶瓷(BC)与对照异种移植物(BO)在引导骨再生(GBR)与种植体植入同时进行的临床效果。材料和方法:本临床研究招募了骨容量不足的患者,他们在植入期间需要GBR来使用BC或BO增加骨宽度。结果测量包括术后立即和术后6个月(ΔHBBT)通过锥形束计算机断层扫描测量颊骨厚度的尺寸减小,术后14天、1个月和6个月软组织愈合,以及并发症发生率。主要结果是种植体周围颊骨厚度的变化。结果:152例患者中,两组各76例接受BC + BO治疗。BC组和BO组的ΔHBBT分别为-0.276 mm(-0.432, -0.121)和-0.614 mm (-0.769, -0.459) mm,拒绝原假设。两组软组织愈合无明显差异,术后2周,BC组96.05%,BO组90.79%无炎症变化。然而,BC组的总并发症发生率较低(3.95%),包括76例患者中的3例轻度炎症、软组织愈合不良和植骨挤压。结论:BC和BO同时用于种植体植入和骨增强时,在骨再生和软组织愈合方面均表现出良好的效果。
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
Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral With Collagen for Anterior Maxillary Ridge Augmentation: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Anaerobic Adhesive Effect on the Counter-Torque of Zirconia Implant Abutment Screws: In Vitro Study. Bioceramics for Guided Bone Regeneration: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Impact of Two Flap Advancement Techniques and Periosteal Suturing on Graft Displacement During Guided Bone Regeneration. Microgap Formation in Conical Implant-Abutment Connections Under Oblique Loading: Influence of Cone Angle Mismatch Through Finite Element Analysis.
×
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