Journal of periodontology · 2024
In vivo experimental study comparing alveolar ridge preservation versus guided bone regeneration after unassisted socket healing at intact and damaged sites in narrow alveolar ridges.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Shin Hae Jee, Park Jin-Young, Tien Hsu Kuo, Strauss Franz-Josef, Cha Jae-Kook, Lee Jung-Seok
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To compare bone regeneration and dimensional alteration of alveolar ridge at intact and damaged extraction sockets after alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and implant placement versus unassisted socket healing followed by guided bone regeneration (GBR) with simultaneous implant placement.
METHODS: In 6 beagle dogs, 3 types of extraction sockets in the mandible were created: (1) intact sockets, (2) 1-wall defect sockets and (3) 2-wall defect sockets. The sockets were allocated to undergo either (1) ARP and implant placement 8 weeks later (ARP group) or (2) GBR with simultaneous implant placement after 8 weeks of unassisted socket healing (GBR group). After an additional healing period of 8 weeks, bone regeneration and dimensional changes were evaluated radiographically and histologically.
RESULTS: GBR showed superior bone formation and greater bone gains compared to ARP, regardless of the initial extraction-socket configuration. Although ARP maintained the preexisting alveolar ridge dimensions, peri-implant bone defects were still detected at 8 weeks of follow-up. Histomorphometric analyses confirmed that GBR increased dimensions of the alveolar ridge compared to baseline, and the augmentation and bone regeneration were greater with GBR than with ARP.
CONCLUSION: Early implant placement with ARP can mitigate alveolar ridge changes in the narrow alveolar ridge. However, early implant placement with simultaneous GBR creates the conditions for enhanced bone regeneration around the implant and greater ridge augmentation compared to ARP, irrespective of the extraction-socket configuration.
METHODS: In 6 beagle dogs, 3 types of extraction sockets in the mandible were created: (1) intact sockets, (2) 1-wall defect sockets and (3) 2-wall defect sockets. The sockets were allocated to undergo either (1) ARP and implant placement 8 weeks later (ARP group) or (2) GBR with simultaneous implant placement after 8 weeks of unassisted socket healing (GBR group). After an additional healing period of 8 weeks, bone regeneration and dimensional changes were evaluated radiographically and histologically.
RESULTS: GBR showed superior bone formation and greater bone gains compared to ARP, regardless of the initial extraction-socket configuration. Although ARP maintained the preexisting alveolar ridge dimensions, peri-implant bone defects were still detected at 8 weeks of follow-up. Histomorphometric analyses confirmed that GBR increased dimensions of the alveolar ridge compared to baseline, and the augmentation and bone regeneration were greater with GBR than with ARP.
CONCLUSION: Early implant placement with ARP can mitigate alveolar ridge changes in the narrow alveolar ridge. However, early implant placement with simultaneous GBR creates the conditions for enhanced bone regeneration around the implant and greater ridge augmentation compared to ARP, irrespective of the extraction-socket configuration.