Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026
[Clinical comparison of xenograft versus synthetic bone graft materials in micro crestal flap-alveolar ridge preservation following extraction of molars].
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang S, Liu J, Xu T, Hu W, Zhang H, Wei Y
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes between xenogeneic bone graft materials primarily composed of deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and synthetic bone graft materials primarily composed of hydroxyapatite (HA) used in micro crestal flap-alveolar ridge preservation (MCF-ARP) of periodontally compromised molars, so as to provide a reference for their application and promotion.
METHODS: In this retrospective case series study, patients who received treatment between October 2024 and April 2025 were enrolled. All the patients underwent MCF-ARP, using either DBBM or HA. Hard tissue changes and alveolar ridge contour collapse were evaluated and compared between the two groups preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and intraoral scanning. Soft tissue healing process after the surgery was also assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 14 molars from 14 patients were included. No significant differences were found in hard tissue changes between the two groups 6 months after the surgery (P>0.05). Two weeks and 1 month postoperatively, the vertical collapse of the contour at the ridge center was significantly greater in the HA group compared with the DBBM group [2 weeks: (2.73±1.89) mm vs. (0.00±0.79) mm, P < 0.05; 1 month: (2.74±1.13) mm vs. (0.35±2.34) mm, P < 0.05]. No significant differences were found in other sites at any other follow-up points (P>0.05). In terms of wound healing, the HA group showed a significantly higher percentage of wound area lacking keratinized tissue coverage compared with the DBBM group both 2 weeks and 1 month after the surgery (2 weeks: 47.88%±6.56% vs. 29.43%±14.25%, P < 0.05; 1 month: 25.68%±13.06% vs. 7.19%±7.18%, P < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the analysis suggests that there is no statistically significant difference in hard tissue and alveolar ridge contour parameters 6 months after MCF-ARP following extraction of periodontally compromised molars. However, early soft tissue healing is faster when using DBBM. Future randomized controlled trials with histological analysis are warranted for further validation.
METHODS: In this retrospective case series study, patients who received treatment between October 2024 and April 2025 were enrolled. All the patients underwent MCF-ARP, using either DBBM or HA. Hard tissue changes and alveolar ridge contour collapse were evaluated and compared between the two groups preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and intraoral scanning. Soft tissue healing process after the surgery was also assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 14 molars from 14 patients were included. No significant differences were found in hard tissue changes between the two groups 6 months after the surgery (P>0.05). Two weeks and 1 month postoperatively, the vertical collapse of the contour at the ridge center was significantly greater in the HA group compared with the DBBM group [2 weeks: (2.73±1.89) mm vs. (0.00±0.79) mm, P < 0.05; 1 month: (2.74±1.13) mm vs. (0.35±2.34) mm, P < 0.05]. No significant differences were found in other sites at any other follow-up points (P>0.05). In terms of wound healing, the HA group showed a significantly higher percentage of wound area lacking keratinized tissue coverage compared with the DBBM group both 2 weeks and 1 month after the surgery (2 weeks: 47.88%±6.56% vs. 29.43%±14.25%, P < 0.05; 1 month: 25.68%±13.06% vs. 7.19%±7.18%, P < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the analysis suggests that there is no statistically significant difference in hard tissue and alveolar ridge contour parameters 6 months after MCF-ARP following extraction of periodontally compromised molars. However, early soft tissue healing is faster when using DBBM. Future randomized controlled trials with histological analysis are warranted for further validation.