Cargando…
Comparative Study between a Novel In Vivo Method and CBCT for Assessment of Ridge Alterations after Socket Preservation—Pilot Study
The aim of this study was to compare two different methods for evaluation of alveolar bone resorption after the socket preservation procedure. In the current study, 9 patients with a total of nine teeth indicated for extraction were included. Patients received alveolar ridge preservation with allogr...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6339037/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30621257 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16010127 |
_version_ | 1783388545312882688 |
---|---|
author | Ivanova, Vasilena Chenchev, Ivan Zlatev, Stefan Iordanov, Georgi Mijiritsky, Eitan |
author_facet | Ivanova, Vasilena Chenchev, Ivan Zlatev, Stefan Iordanov, Georgi Mijiritsky, Eitan |
author_sort | Ivanova, Vasilena |
collection | PubMed |
description | The aim of this study was to compare two different methods for evaluation of alveolar bone resorption after the socket preservation procedure. In the current study, 9 patients with a total of nine teeth indicated for extraction were included. Patients received alveolar ridge preservation with allograft (BoneAlbumin™, OrthoSera Dental, Gyor, Hungary) or Platelet-Rich fibrin (PRF). CBCT (Planmeca ProMax 3D, Helsinki, Finland), was taken at 1 week and 4 months after the socket preservation procedure. A 3D scan, obtained with Trios (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) of the alveolar bone of the surgical site and the adjacent teeth at the place of extraction was performed during the surgical procedure, immediately after the graft placement in the alveolar socket, and after 4 months. Virtual study models were generated using the three-dimensional file processing software “Meshlab” (ISTI—CNR Rome Italy). The changes of alveolar height and width were measured and analyzed. Results were taken from both methods. Radiographic examination revealed that the average value of horizontal resorption is 0.6–2.4 mm, and vertical resorption is 0.46–2.8 mm. On virtual models, the average value for horizontal resorption is 1.92–3.64 mm, the vertical resorption value is 0.95–2.10 mm. The Trios intraoral scan can provide non-invasive and more accurate quantitative insights into the dimensional changes in the alveolar ridge after the bone remodeling process. More research is needed for verification of these results. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6339037 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63390372019-01-23 Comparative Study between a Novel In Vivo Method and CBCT for Assessment of Ridge Alterations after Socket Preservation—Pilot Study Ivanova, Vasilena Chenchev, Ivan Zlatev, Stefan Iordanov, Georgi Mijiritsky, Eitan Int J Environ Res Public Health Article The aim of this study was to compare two different methods for evaluation of alveolar bone resorption after the socket preservation procedure. In the current study, 9 patients with a total of nine teeth indicated for extraction were included. Patients received alveolar ridge preservation with allograft (BoneAlbumin™, OrthoSera Dental, Gyor, Hungary) or Platelet-Rich fibrin (PRF). CBCT (Planmeca ProMax 3D, Helsinki, Finland), was taken at 1 week and 4 months after the socket preservation procedure. A 3D scan, obtained with Trios (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) of the alveolar bone of the surgical site and the adjacent teeth at the place of extraction was performed during the surgical procedure, immediately after the graft placement in the alveolar socket, and after 4 months. Virtual study models were generated using the three-dimensional file processing software “Meshlab” (ISTI—CNR Rome Italy). The changes of alveolar height and width were measured and analyzed. Results were taken from both methods. Radiographic examination revealed that the average value of horizontal resorption is 0.6–2.4 mm, and vertical resorption is 0.46–2.8 mm. On virtual models, the average value for horizontal resorption is 1.92–3.64 mm, the vertical resorption value is 0.95–2.10 mm. The Trios intraoral scan can provide non-invasive and more accurate quantitative insights into the dimensional changes in the alveolar ridge after the bone remodeling process. More research is needed for verification of these results. MDPI 2019-01-05 2019-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6339037/ /pubmed/30621257 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16010127 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Ivanova, Vasilena Chenchev, Ivan Zlatev, Stefan Iordanov, Georgi Mijiritsky, Eitan Comparative Study between a Novel In Vivo Method and CBCT for Assessment of Ridge Alterations after Socket Preservation—Pilot Study |
title | Comparative Study between a Novel In Vivo Method and CBCT for Assessment of Ridge Alterations after Socket Preservation—Pilot Study |
title_full | Comparative Study between a Novel In Vivo Method and CBCT for Assessment of Ridge Alterations after Socket Preservation—Pilot Study |
title_fullStr | Comparative Study between a Novel In Vivo Method and CBCT for Assessment of Ridge Alterations after Socket Preservation—Pilot Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Study between a Novel In Vivo Method and CBCT for Assessment of Ridge Alterations after Socket Preservation—Pilot Study |
title_short | Comparative Study between a Novel In Vivo Method and CBCT for Assessment of Ridge Alterations after Socket Preservation—Pilot Study |
title_sort | comparative study between a novel in vivo method and cbct for assessment of ridge alterations after socket preservation—pilot study |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6339037/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30621257 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16010127 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ivanovavasilena comparativestudybetweenanovelinvivomethodandcbctforassessmentofridgealterationsaftersocketpreservationpilotstudy AT chenchevivan comparativestudybetweenanovelinvivomethodandcbctforassessmentofridgealterationsaftersocketpreservationpilotstudy AT zlatevstefan comparativestudybetweenanovelinvivomethodandcbctforassessmentofridgealterationsaftersocketpreservationpilotstudy AT iordanovgeorgi comparativestudybetweenanovelinvivomethodandcbctforassessmentofridgealterationsaftersocketpreservationpilotstudy AT mijiritskyeitan comparativestudybetweenanovelinvivomethodandcbctforassessmentofridgealterationsaftersocketpreservationpilotstudy |