Cargando…

Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single‐blind controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES: To compare radiographic bone changes, following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR), a Socket Seal (SS) technique or unassisted socket healing (Control). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients requiring a single rooted tooth extraction in the anterior maxilla,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: MacBeth, Neil D., Donos, Nikolaos, Mardas, Nikos
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9541021/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35488477
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13933
_version_ 1784803832653414400
author MacBeth, Neil D.
Donos, Nikolaos
Mardas, Nikos
author_facet MacBeth, Neil D.
Donos, Nikolaos
Mardas, Nikos
author_sort MacBeth, Neil D.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To compare radiographic bone changes, following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR), a Socket Seal (SS) technique or unassisted socket healing (Control). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients requiring a single rooted tooth extraction in the anterior maxilla, were randomly allocated into: GBR, SS and Control groups (n= 14/). Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images were recorded post‐extraction and at 4 months, the mid‐buccal and mid‐palatal alveolar ridge heights (BARH/PARH) were measured. The alveolar ridge width, cross‐sectional socket and alveolar‐process area changes, implant placement feasibility, requirement for bone augmentation and post‐surgical complications were also recorded. RESULTS: BARH and PARH was found to increase with the SS (0.65 mm ± 1.1/0.65 mm ± 1.42) techniques, stabilise with GBR (0.07 mm ± 0.83/0.86 mm ±1.37) and decrease in the Control (−0.52 mm ± 0.8/−0.43 mm ± 0.83). Statistically significance was found when comparing the GBR and SS BARH (p = .04/.005) and GBR PARH (p = .02) against the Control. GBR recorded the smallest reduction in alveolar ridge width (−2.17 mm ± 0.84), when compared to the Control (−2.3 mm ± 1.11) (p = .89). A mid‐socket cross‐sectional area reduction of 4% (−2.27 mm(2) ± 11.89), 1% (−0.88 mm(2) ± 15.48) and 13% (−6.93 mm(2) ± 8.22) was found with GBR, SS and Control groups (GBR vs. Control p = .01). The equivalent alveolar process area reduction was 8% (−7.36 mm(2) ± 10.45), 6% (−7 mm(2) ± 18.97) and 11% (−11.32 mm(2) ± 10.92). All groups supported implant placement, with bone dehiscence noted in 57% (n = 4), 64%(n = 7) and 85%(n = 12) of GBR, SS and Control cases (GBR vs. Control p = .03). GBR had a higher risk of swelling and mucosal colour change, with SS associated with graft sequestration and matrix breakdown. CONCLUSION: GBR ARP was found to be more effective at reducing radiographic bone dimensional changes following tooth extraction.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9541021
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95410212022-10-14 Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single‐blind controlled clinical trial MacBeth, Neil D. Donos, Nikolaos Mardas, Nikos Clin Oral Implants Res Original Articles OBJECTIVES: To compare radiographic bone changes, following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR), a Socket Seal (SS) technique or unassisted socket healing (Control). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients requiring a single rooted tooth extraction in the anterior maxilla, were randomly allocated into: GBR, SS and Control groups (n= 14/). Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images were recorded post‐extraction and at 4 months, the mid‐buccal and mid‐palatal alveolar ridge heights (BARH/PARH) were measured. The alveolar ridge width, cross‐sectional socket and alveolar‐process area changes, implant placement feasibility, requirement for bone augmentation and post‐surgical complications were also recorded. RESULTS: BARH and PARH was found to increase with the SS (0.65 mm ± 1.1/0.65 mm ± 1.42) techniques, stabilise with GBR (0.07 mm ± 0.83/0.86 mm ±1.37) and decrease in the Control (−0.52 mm ± 0.8/−0.43 mm ± 0.83). Statistically significance was found when comparing the GBR and SS BARH (p = .04/.005) and GBR PARH (p = .02) against the Control. GBR recorded the smallest reduction in alveolar ridge width (−2.17 mm ± 0.84), when compared to the Control (−2.3 mm ± 1.11) (p = .89). A mid‐socket cross‐sectional area reduction of 4% (−2.27 mm(2) ± 11.89), 1% (−0.88 mm(2) ± 15.48) and 13% (−6.93 mm(2) ± 8.22) was found with GBR, SS and Control groups (GBR vs. Control p = .01). The equivalent alveolar process area reduction was 8% (−7.36 mm(2) ± 10.45), 6% (−7 mm(2) ± 18.97) and 11% (−11.32 mm(2) ± 10.92). All groups supported implant placement, with bone dehiscence noted in 57% (n = 4), 64%(n = 7) and 85%(n = 12) of GBR, SS and Control cases (GBR vs. Control p = .03). GBR had a higher risk of swelling and mucosal colour change, with SS associated with graft sequestration and matrix breakdown. CONCLUSION: GBR ARP was found to be more effective at reducing radiographic bone dimensional changes following tooth extraction. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-06-22 2022-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9541021/ /pubmed/35488477 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13933 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
MacBeth, Neil D.
Donos, Nikolaos
Mardas, Nikos
Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single‐blind controlled clinical trial
title Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single‐blind controlled clinical trial
title_full Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single‐blind controlled clinical trial
title_fullStr Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single‐blind controlled clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single‐blind controlled clinical trial
title_short Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single‐blind controlled clinical trial
title_sort alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. a randomised, single‐blind controlled clinical trial
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9541021/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35488477
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13933
work_keys_str_mv AT macbethneild alveolarridgepreservationwithguidedboneregenerationorsocketsealtechniquearandomisedsingleblindcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT donosnikolaos alveolarridgepreservationwithguidedboneregenerationorsocketsealtechniquearandomisedsingleblindcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT mardasnikos alveolarridgepreservationwithguidedboneregenerationorsocketsealtechniquearandomisedsingleblindcontrolledclinicaltrial