The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · 2026
Influence of xenograft with and without 10% collagen for ridge preservation in periodontally compromised molars: A randomized clinical trial.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Xu Tao, Zhang Haoyun, Ren Yuying, Hu Wenjie, Wei Yiping, Li Liman
Аннотация
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Evidence for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using deproteinized bovine bone mineral with or without collagen (DBBM-C versus DBBM) in periodontally compromised molars is limited.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to assess clinical outcomes following ARP using DBBM-C and DBBM in periodontally compromised molars.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-six participants were included and divided into DBBM and DBBM-C groups using simple randomization to receive an ARP procedure. Hard tissue changes were assessed by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) at baseline and 6 months after surgery. Soft tissue contour changes were assessed by intraoral scans immediately and at 2 weeks and 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Treatment costs and implant placement feasibility were recorded after implant therapy. Group comparisons at baseline and outcome used t tests and Mann-Whitney U, chi-square, or Fisher exact tests (by data distribution), with repeated-measures ANOVA for soft tissue contour changes.
RESULTS: The DBBM and DBBM-C exhibited comparable augmentation in central bone height and ridge width (P=.201 and P=.166). The mean collapse of buccal soft tissue contour in the DBBM-C group was 0.99 mm (vertical: P=.040), 1.12 mm (horizontal: P=.013) and less than that in the DBBM group. Neither implant placement feasibility (P=.607) nor total treatment costs (P=.158) revealed significant differences between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, DBBM and DBBM-C showed comparable outcomes regarding ridge dimension changes, implant placement feasibility, and overall treatment costs. DBBM-C demonstrated less soft tissue contour resorption.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to assess clinical outcomes following ARP using DBBM-C and DBBM in periodontally compromised molars.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-six participants were included and divided into DBBM and DBBM-C groups using simple randomization to receive an ARP procedure. Hard tissue changes were assessed by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) at baseline and 6 months after surgery. Soft tissue contour changes were assessed by intraoral scans immediately and at 2 weeks and 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Treatment costs and implant placement feasibility were recorded after implant therapy. Group comparisons at baseline and outcome used t tests and Mann-Whitney U, chi-square, or Fisher exact tests (by data distribution), with repeated-measures ANOVA for soft tissue contour changes.
RESULTS: The DBBM and DBBM-C exhibited comparable augmentation in central bone height and ridge width (P=.201 and P=.166). The mean collapse of buccal soft tissue contour in the DBBM-C group was 0.99 mm (vertical: P=.040), 1.12 mm (horizontal: P=.013) and less than that in the DBBM group. Neither implant placement feasibility (P=.607) nor total treatment costs (P=.158) revealed significant differences between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, DBBM and DBBM-C showed comparable outcomes regarding ridge dimension changes, implant placement feasibility, and overall treatment costs. DBBM-C demonstrated less soft tissue contour resorption.