Clinical oral investigations · 2024
Competence of allogenic demineralized tooth matrix in socket seal surgery for alveolar ridge preservation: a randomized control clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Bureekanchan Kannika, Leepong Narit, Suttapreyasri Srisurang
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the clinical, radiological, and histological outcomes of socket seal surgery between two protocols: deproteinized demineralized tooth matrix (dpDTM) and freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) each covered with a free gingival graft.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty extraction sockets in the anterior or premolar region were randomly allocated to either the dpDTM or FDBA protocol (n = 10 per group). Measurements of the alveolar ridge changes were obtained using an intraoral scanner and cone-beam computed tomography at 3 months post-operation. Three-month post surgery, the dental implant was installed (n = 5 per group), bone biopsies were obtained for histomorphometrical and micro-computed tomography analyses. Implant stability quotients (ISQs) were determined and compared at 3 months post-implant.
RESULTS: Lower significant reductions in buccal alveolar ridge height and hard tissue volume were observed in dpDTM group compared to FDBA group at 3 months (0.25 ± 0.35 mm vs. 1.60 ± 0.66 mm [p = .000] and 9.64 ± 15.39% mm3 vs. 31.45 ± 18.11% mm3 [p = .010], respectively). At the same time, lower soft tissue volume reduction was detected in the dpDTM group compared to FDBA group (4.21 ± 5.25% mm3 vs. 5.25 ± 5.79% mm3). No statistically significant difference in the percentage of mineralized tissue formation was found between dpDTM group (53.39 ± 11.16%) and FDBA group (49.90 ± 3.27%). Even though the ISQ in the dpDTM group showed a higher value than the FDBA group at 3 months post-implant, the results were without statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: Alveolar ridge preservation using dpDTM is an efficacious procedure for providing the conditions for the development of functional and esthetic implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty extraction sockets in the anterior or premolar region were randomly allocated to either the dpDTM or FDBA protocol (n = 10 per group). Measurements of the alveolar ridge changes were obtained using an intraoral scanner and cone-beam computed tomography at 3 months post-operation. Three-month post surgery, the dental implant was installed (n = 5 per group), bone biopsies were obtained for histomorphometrical and micro-computed tomography analyses. Implant stability quotients (ISQs) were determined and compared at 3 months post-implant.
RESULTS: Lower significant reductions in buccal alveolar ridge height and hard tissue volume were observed in dpDTM group compared to FDBA group at 3 months (0.25 ± 0.35 mm vs. 1.60 ± 0.66 mm [p = .000] and 9.64 ± 15.39% mm3 vs. 31.45 ± 18.11% mm3 [p = .010], respectively). At the same time, lower soft tissue volume reduction was detected in the dpDTM group compared to FDBA group (4.21 ± 5.25% mm3 vs. 5.25 ± 5.79% mm3). No statistically significant difference in the percentage of mineralized tissue formation was found between dpDTM group (53.39 ± 11.16%) and FDBA group (49.90 ± 3.27%). Even though the ISQ in the dpDTM group showed a higher value than the FDBA group at 3 months post-implant, the results were without statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: Alveolar ridge preservation using dpDTM is an efficacious procedure for providing the conditions for the development of functional and esthetic implants.