Bovine‐derived xenograft in combination with autogenous bone chips versus xenograft alone for the augmentation of bony dehiscences around oral implants: A randomized, controlled, split‐mouth clinical trial
Autor: | Jeroen Van Dessel, Wim Teughels, Alexander De Greef, Marc Quirynen, Rutger Dhondt, Andy Temmerman, Simone Cortellini, Reinhilde Jacobs |
---|---|
Rok vydání: | 2019 |
Předmět: |
Bone Regeneration
Dentistry Dehiscence 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Animals Humans Medicine 030212 general & internal medicine Autogenous bone Dental Implants Mouth Bone Transplantation business.industry Dental Implantation Endosseous Collagen membrane Alveolar Ridge Augmentation 030206 dentistry Implant placement Clinical trial Guided Tissue Regeneration Periodontal Heterografts Periodontics Cattle Implant Composite graft business Abutment (dentistry) |
Zdroj: | Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 47:110-119 |
ISSN: | 1600-051X 0303-6979 |
DOI: | 10.1111/jcpe.13209 |
Popis: | Aim The aim of the study was to evaluate whether the use of a xenograft is not inferior to the use of xenograft and autogenous bone chips in treating dehiscences at implant placement. Materials and methods After implant placement, leaving a dehiscence, control sites were treated using a composite graft (autogenous bone chips and xenograft) and at the test sites 100% xenograft was used. Both sites were covered with a resorbable collagen membrane. Dehiscences were measured clinically at implant placement and at re-entry. CBCT was taken immediately after implant placement and after 4 months. Results In total, 28 GBR procedures were performed in 14 patients. On average, the change in vertical defect height was 2.07 mm (46.7%-test group) and 2.28 mm (50.9%-control group) (p > .05). The horizontal defect width at the implant shoulder change on average 1.85 mm (40.5%-test group) and 1.75 mm (40.9%-control group) (p > .05). On average, a loss in augmentation thickness of 0.45 mm (68.9%-test group) and 0.64 mm (55.5% control group) between implant placement and augmentation and abutment surgery was obtained at the implant shoulder. Conclusion Both treatment modalities seem to work to a certain extent. At implant shoulder level, the augmentation thickness seems to be disappeared after the healing phase. (NCT03946020). |
Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
Externí odkaz: |