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,...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |