Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Socket Seal Technique to Guided Bone Regeneration in Alveolar Ridge Preservation.
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.
Surdiacourt Lenz, Pitman Jeremy, De Keyser Robbe, Willems Wout, Cosyn Jan
Аннотация
AIM: To compare alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) with the socket seal technique (SS) to the Guided Bone Regeneration technique (GBR).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systemically healthy patients planned for ARP at two sites with an intact bone wall or a buccal dehiscence of up to 6 mm were included. Following socket grafting with collagen-enriched deproteinized bovine bone mineral, sites were randomly allocated to the SS group using a collagen matrix or GBR group using a collagen membrane. The primary outcome was soft tissue thickness at the center of the site at 4 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in hard and soft tissue dimensions and the Socket Wound Healing Score (SWHS).
RESULTS: Eighteen patients (13 females, 5 males) with a mean age of 61 years (SD 7.36) participated in this intra-subject RCT. There was no significant difference in soft tissue thickness at the center of the site between the groups (MD 0.12 mm; 95% CI: -0.67; 0.91; p = 0.750). Changes in hard and soft tissue dimensions also failed to show significant differences. However, during the early healing phase, significantly faster wound closure (p ≤ 0.009) and a lower SWHS (p = 0.008) were observed in the SS group. Implants could be installed in all sites, and additional bone augmentation was required in 6% of the sites. Additional soft tissue augmentation was performed in 22% of the sites.
CONCLUSION: No significant difference in soft tissue thickness was detected between the SS and GBR technique.
TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT06029322.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systemically healthy patients planned for ARP at two sites with an intact bone wall or a buccal dehiscence of up to 6 mm were included. Following socket grafting with collagen-enriched deproteinized bovine bone mineral, sites were randomly allocated to the SS group using a collagen matrix or GBR group using a collagen membrane. The primary outcome was soft tissue thickness at the center of the site at 4 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in hard and soft tissue dimensions and the Socket Wound Healing Score (SWHS).
RESULTS: Eighteen patients (13 females, 5 males) with a mean age of 61 years (SD 7.36) participated in this intra-subject RCT. There was no significant difference in soft tissue thickness at the center of the site between the groups (MD 0.12 mm; 95% CI: -0.67; 0.91; p = 0.750). Changes in hard and soft tissue dimensions also failed to show significant differences. However, during the early healing phase, significantly faster wound closure (p ≤ 0.009) and a lower SWHS (p = 0.008) were observed in the SS group. Implants could be installed in all sites, and additional bone augmentation was required in 6% of the sites. Additional soft tissue augmentation was performed in 22% of the sites.
CONCLUSION: No significant difference in soft tissue thickness was detected between the SS and GBR technique.
TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT06029322.