Ridge Augmentation Comparing an Allograft Plus Autogenous Bone Chips to an Osteoinductive Demineralized Bone Matrix: A Clinical and Histologic Study in Humans.
Abhishek Patel, Henry Greenwell, Margaret Hill, Brian Shumway, Aaron Radmall
{"title":"Ridge Augmentation Comparing an Allograft Plus Autogenous Bone Chips to an Osteoinductive Demineralized Bone Matrix: A Clinical and Histologic Study in Humans.","authors":"Abhishek Patel, Henry Greenwell, Margaret Hill, Brian Shumway, Aaron Radmall","doi":"10.1097/ID.0000000000000925","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The primary aim of this randomized, controlled, blinded, clinical trial was to compare a mix of particulate allograft and harvested autogenous particles (Autogenous) to an osteoinductive demineralized bone matrix (DBM) allograft on clinical and histologic outcomes for horizontal ridge augmentation procedure.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Fourteen patients with a horizontal ridge defect with at least 1 adjacent tooth were entered into this study. The test group of 7 subjects received corticocancellous particulate allograft (Mineross) mixed with autogenous bone chips (70:30) harvested using a bone scraper (SafeScraper TWIST). Seven subjects in the control group received DBM (Optecure-CCC). Both groups had a corticocancellous particulate allograft overlay and an acellular dermis membrane (ADMG) (AlloDerm GBR) to cover the grafts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the Autogenous group, there was a gain of 3.5 ± 1.4 mm while the DBM group gained 3.8 ± 1.6 mm (P < 0.05). Vertical change was minimal for both groups (P > 0.05). The Autogenous group had a mean of 35% vital bone while the DBM had 39% (P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both treatments provided similar gain of ridge width and minimal loss of ridge height. The autogenous bone chips did not provide any additional benefit when compared with allograft alone that had lot verified osteoinductive activity.</p>","PeriodicalId":13309,"journal":{"name":"Implant Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/ID.0000000000000925","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implant Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000925","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
Purpose: The primary aim of this randomized, controlled, blinded, clinical trial was to compare a mix of particulate allograft and harvested autogenous particles (Autogenous) to an osteoinductive demineralized bone matrix (DBM) allograft on clinical and histologic outcomes for horizontal ridge augmentation procedure.
Materials and methods: Fourteen patients with a horizontal ridge defect with at least 1 adjacent tooth were entered into this study. The test group of 7 subjects received corticocancellous particulate allograft (Mineross) mixed with autogenous bone chips (70:30) harvested using a bone scraper (SafeScraper TWIST). Seven subjects in the control group received DBM (Optecure-CCC). Both groups had a corticocancellous particulate allograft overlay and an acellular dermis membrane (ADMG) (AlloDerm GBR) to cover the grafts.
Results: For the Autogenous group, there was a gain of 3.5 ± 1.4 mm while the DBM group gained 3.8 ± 1.6 mm (P < 0.05). Vertical change was minimal for both groups (P > 0.05). The Autogenous group had a mean of 35% vital bone while the DBM had 39% (P > 0.05).
Conclusions: Both treatments provided similar gain of ridge width and minimal loss of ridge height. The autogenous bone chips did not provide any additional benefit when compared with allograft alone that had lot verified osteoinductive activity.
期刊介绍:
Cessation. Implant Dentistry, an interdisciplinary forum for general practitioners, specialists, educators, and researchers, publishes relevant clinical, educational, and research articles that document current concepts of oral implantology in sections on biomaterials, clinical reports, oral and maxillofacial surgery, oral pathology, periodontics, prosthodontics, and research. The journal includes guest editorials, letters to the editor, book reviews, abstracts of current literature, and news of sponsoring societies.