Bioceramics for Guided Bone Regeneration: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Yulan Wang, Gang Fu, Jian Zhang, Yan Xu, Ming Shen, Zhe Yi, Jing Lan, Qiang Li, Yangsheng Zhao, Runfa Wu, Yufeng Zhang
{"title":"Bioceramics for Guided Bone Regeneration: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Yulan Wang, Gang Fu, Jian Zhang, Yan Xu, Ming Shen, Zhe Yi, Jing Lan, Qiang Li, Yangsheng Zhao, Runfa Wu, Yufeng Zhang","doi":"10.1111/cid.13437","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the clinical effectiveness of a novel bioceramic (BC) with a control xenograft (BO) for guided bone regeneration (GBR) performed simultaneously with implant placement.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This clinical study enrolled patients with insufficient bone volume who required GBR during implant placement to increase bone width using either BC or BO. Outcome measures included a dimensional reduction in buccal bone thickness measured by cone beam computed tomography performed immediately post-surgery and at 6 months postoperatively (ΔHBBT), soft tissue healing at 14 days, 1 month, and 6 months postoperatively, and complications rates. The primary outcome was the change in buccal bone thickness around the implant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the total 152 patients included, 76 from each group received BC and BO treatments. The ΔHBBT in BC and BO groups were -0.276 mm (-0.432, -0.121) and -0.614 mm (-0.769, -0.459) mm, respectively, rejecting the null hypothesis. No significant difference in soft tissue healing was observed between the two groups, with no inflammatory changes in 96.05% and 90.79% of the BC and BO groups, respectively, at 2 weeks postoperatively. However, the BC group exhibited a lower overall complication rate (3.95%), including mild inflammation, poor soft tissue healing, and bone graft extrusion in 3 out of 76 patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both BC and BO demonstrated favorable outcomes in bone regeneration and soft tissue healing when used for simultaneous implant placement and bone augmentation.</p>","PeriodicalId":93944,"journal":{"name":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","volume":"27 1","pages":"e13437"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13437","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the clinical effectiveness of a novel bioceramic (BC) with a control xenograft (BO) for guided bone regeneration (GBR) performed simultaneously with implant placement.

Materials and methods: This clinical study enrolled patients with insufficient bone volume who required GBR during implant placement to increase bone width using either BC or BO. Outcome measures included a dimensional reduction in buccal bone thickness measured by cone beam computed tomography performed immediately post-surgery and at 6 months postoperatively (ΔHBBT), soft tissue healing at 14 days, 1 month, and 6 months postoperatively, and complications rates. The primary outcome was the change in buccal bone thickness around the implant.

Results: Of the total 152 patients included, 76 from each group received BC and BO treatments. The ΔHBBT in BC and BO groups were -0.276 mm (-0.432, -0.121) and -0.614 mm (-0.769, -0.459) mm, respectively, rejecting the null hypothesis. No significant difference in soft tissue healing was observed between the two groups, with no inflammatory changes in 96.05% and 90.79% of the BC and BO groups, respectively, at 2 weeks postoperatively. However, the BC group exhibited a lower overall complication rate (3.95%), including mild inflammation, poor soft tissue healing, and bone graft extrusion in 3 out of 76 patients.

Conclusions: Both BC and BO demonstrated favorable outcomes in bone regeneration and soft tissue healing when used for simultaneous implant placement and bone augmentation.

生物陶瓷引导骨再生:一项多中心随机对照试验。
目的:比较一种新型生物陶瓷(BC)与对照异种移植物(BO)在引导骨再生(GBR)与种植体植入同时进行的临床效果。材料和方法:本临床研究招募了骨容量不足的患者,他们在植入期间需要GBR来使用BC或BO增加骨宽度。结果测量包括术后立即和术后6个月(ΔHBBT)通过锥形束计算机断层扫描测量颊骨厚度的尺寸减小,术后14天、1个月和6个月软组织愈合,以及并发症发生率。主要结果是种植体周围颊骨厚度的变化。结果:152例患者中,两组各76例接受BC + BO治疗。BC组和BO组的ΔHBBT分别为-0.276 mm(-0.432, -0.121)和-0.614 mm (-0.769, -0.459) mm,拒绝原假设。两组软组织愈合无明显差异,术后2周,BC组96.05%,BO组90.79%无炎症变化。然而,BC组的总并发症发生率较低(3.95%),包括76例患者中的3例轻度炎症、软组织愈合不良和植骨挤压。结论:BC和BO同时用于种植体植入和骨增强时,在骨再生和软组织愈合方面均表现出良好的效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信